Deprecation of -I- and -iquote

es -iquote, and there's a patch floating around that adds -ignore-source-dir flag (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00653.html). What else is needed move this forward? Regards, Rodolfo Lima

C++0x Concepts development schedule

dy, I'm sort of excited because of the possibilities it unleashes. I'd really like to help on this task, but I never worked on GCC internals, and helping implement concepts for it isn't the best or more efficient way to start :) Best regards and thanks for the awesome compiler you guys put out, Rodolfo Lima

Re: C++0x Concepts development schedule

to do that. When the time to get the hands dirty arrives, I'll need to know if somebody's working off-branch on some parts to avoid unnecessary work. I also know that ConceptGCC's implementation isn't the best, so it'll be good to know which parts of it are in good shape and which must be rethought and reimplemented. Regards, Rodolfo Lima

C++0x unrestricted unions

Hi, I'd like to know if somebody is implementing c++0x's unrestricted unions (N2544) in g++, or if there are any plans to do it in mid-term. Thanks, Rodolfo Lima

Re: C++0x unrestricted unions

Rodolfo Lima escreveu: > Hi, I'd like to know if somebody is implementing c++0x's unrestricted > unions (N2544) in g++, or if there are any plans to do it in mid-term. Sorry, by 'in mid-term' I meant "in a not too distant timeframe". []s, rod

Re: Delegating constructors patch

Em 06-07-2010 07:46, Paolo Carlini escreveu: > That work is incomplete, cannot be merged as-is: Thanks for pointing it out for me, Paolo. []s, rod

out of source builds and precompiled headers

weren't applied, this kind of demotivate me. Best regards, Rodolfo Lima

-Winvalid-pch semantics

get rid of those spurious warnings in detriment of not knowing whether the pch was used or not. Regards, Rodolfo Lima.

Fix C++0x regressions for gcc-4.3

ho are already using C++0x new features. Regards, Rodolfo Lima.

Re: Fix C++0x regressions for gcc-4.3

GCC, but that doesn't work now. Thanks for your explanation (and Andrew's in a private message). I was looking for this info in a FAQ but couldn't find it. Regards, Rodolfo Lima.

Re: Overload resolution compilation error

biguity. > This problem can be also reduced to this one: > == > void foo() { } > void foo(int) { } > > int main() > { >&foo; > } > == This is different because there's no function template involved. Regards, Rodolfo Lima.

Re: Overload resolution compilation error

function is added. Being the only function in the set, there's no ambiguity and the address of "void foo()" should be passed to "bar". Best regards, Rodolfo Lima.

Re: Address of template function bug (was: Overload resolution compilation error)

ly we'd like to open a PR and get it fixed. > > I think we have finally a consensus at > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/52087a72bdc5de5a Hi, I'd like some feedback on this thread because if it's really a bug, I'd fill a bug report. Thanks, Rodolfo Lima.