Quoting John McCall :
On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
There's no "for a long time" here. The ABI does not allow us to emit these
symbols with non-coalescing linkage. We're not going to break ABI
just because people didn't consider a particular code pattern when they
hacke
The GCC 4.5.4 release has been tagged and is being created right now.
The 4.5 branch is thus now closed.
We have now two actively maintained releases as planned, 4.6.x and 4.7.x.
Richard.
On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
> compiler.
That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
that's already present in the testsuite machinery, isn't it? I have no
objection to discussing this other topi
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
>> compiler.
>
> That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
> that's already present in the testsuite machi
On Jun 30, 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> IBM's policy specifies a comma:
> ,
> and not a dash range.
But this notation already means something else in our source tree.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- G
On 7/2/2012 8:35 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 30, 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
IBM's policy specifies a comma:
,
and not a dash range.
But this notation already means something else in our source tree.
I think using the dash is preferable, and is a VERY widely used
notation, us
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 8:35 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> > > IBM's policy specifies a comma:
> >
> > > ,
> >
> > > and not a dash range.
> >
> > But this notation already means something else in our source tree.
>
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2012 8:35 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > On Jun 30, 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> >
>> > > IBM's policy specifies a comma:
>> >
>> > > ,
>> >
>> > > and not a dash range.
>> >
>> > But
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> There was a similar discussion many years ago. The dash format is
> widely used, but the comma format has better legal clarity and
> definition in worldwide copyright litigation, at least many years ago.
Maybe questions about the meanings of the dash fo
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.5.4 has been released.
GCC 4.5.4 is the last bug-fix release containing important fixes
for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.5.3. This release is
available from the FTP servers listed at:
http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
Please do not contact me di
On Jun 28, 2012, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> Unfortunately, this found a bug in both gcc and clang (or in the
> itanium ABI, it is not very clear). The testcase is
not well-formed C++, for it violates the one-definition rule in that it
*lacks* a definition for the virtual member function foo::~foo
> not well-formed C++, for it violates the one-definition rule in that it
> *lacks* a definition for the virtual member function foo::~foo(). Does
> it make any difference if you add a definition?
Unfortunately no. Replacing the declaration with an inline definition
produces a copy of it in undef
> Yes, this indeed looks like (most probably my) bug in the constant folding
> code that now uses extern vtables. I will fix it. So we can not take
> comdat linkage decl from external vtable when we no longer have its body
> around, right?
Sounds about the fix John was describing, yes. You can p
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
> compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
> to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using
> std::list in headers incompatible
This is pretty nasty
On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using
std::list in headers in
On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
>>> compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
>>> to std::_List_
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (mo
On 2 July 2012 18:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I'd like to see inline namespaces used so that in C++11 mode std::list
>> refers to (for example) std::__2011::list, which has the additional
>> member. That wouldn't link to C++03's std::list
Hi,
On 07/02/2012 07:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11
On Jul 2, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
>> First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
>> compiler.
>
> That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
> that's already present in the testsuite machinery,
On 07/02/2012 11:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I also want to mention (I don't think somebody did already in the
thread) that at some point, with Jason too, we discussed the idea of
adding to each binary a marker about the ABI version which then would be
used by the linker to warn or error out. Th
My attempt to access the www.netgull.com mirror was blocked by our web content
filter today. They tell me that this site may be serving malicious content:
> I did some research on www.netgull.com to see if I could get the filtering
> vendor to change the categorization of this website. During t
22 matches
Mail list logo
