--- Comment #6 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-07-28 18:42
---
The next step would be to verify that the penalty is eliminated when using
boost::function / tr1::function
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874
--- Comment #3 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-07-27 16:26
---
The missing inlining is the cause, abstraction penalty is the symptom.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874
4.4.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
GCC build triplet: 4.4.0
GCC target triplet: i386-apple-darwin-9.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40063
--- Comment #31 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-04-09 13:58
---
OK, I don't get what it's controlling then, but maybe that's not important.
Still, I suggest you choose a more specific name to leave the door open for
"prettier" template printing i
--- Comment #29 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-04-08 19:49
---
Although I really appreciate the fix, I really don't like the name of the
option. "Pretty" templates means something much more like the formatting I
used in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #16 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-04-03 19:38
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> GCC will now say
>
> ../../../../boost/sequence/make_range.hpp:60: instantiated from
> boost::sequence::detail::range_maker::type
> boost::sequence::detail::range
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-03-03 21:11
---
I don't know that SFINAE has anything to do with this. Looks like I was just
doing namespace composition.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21682
--- Comment #9 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-03-02 20:24
---
Hi Jason,
Please assume I know what I'm asking for and stop turning it into a different
problem. Go back and look at the original report more closely, particularly
the part that discusses boost::result_of:
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-03-02 16:39
---
Why do you think I want to see the typedef name when I've explicitly asked for
the opposite?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185
--- Comment #2 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2008-11-06 19:59
---
This is really a serious problem!
For example, consider this error message I got today. If you look carefully,
you can see the fundamental problem is that two unsigned int lvalues are being
passed to this
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36883
--- Comment #10 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2008-07-20 19:15
---
Since the issue in question is now a DR, can this bug be re-activated?
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#218
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17365
--- Comment #7 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-27 23:07
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Use this technique. In fact, if you can, use my code.
>
> In fact, Howard already mentioned that, at some point. To be c
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-21 17:16
---
Just "adding a throwing allocator" (especially one that throws
randomly like this one) will not test the library guarantees anywhere
nearly as effectively as the STLPort tests do. The technique is
o
--- Comment #2 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-21 14:25
---
I won't push the subject any further, but again, if you don't adopt the tests
mentioned in the threads cited above, you will almost certainly have further
exception safety bugs lurking. Howard H
8532fcf240
--
Summary: Exception-safety bug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulti
--- Comment #3 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2006-05-01 02:43
---
I'm afraid I don't.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26904
--- Comment #1 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2006-03-28 15:16
---
Created an attachment (id=11136)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11136&action=view)
Preprocessed C++ source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26904
inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-11-30 17:48
---
Created an attachment (id=10370)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10370&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185
ned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-22
03:11 ---
Subject: Re: Download > Releases doesn't take me to appropriate info
"gerald at pfeifer dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From gerald at pfe
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
23:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Internal Compiler Error
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
19:56 ---
The code is definitely invalid; I was just wondering how you decided that so
quickly ;-)
It still should never cause an ICE, of course ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
18:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This code is invalid.
How did you come to that determination?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
17:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=8939)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8939&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21682
eclaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
CC: gcc-b
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
17:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=8938)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8938&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: Download > Releases doesn't take me to appropriate info
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at su
take me to appropriate info
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-27
01:52 ---
This is obviously becoming personal. I wanted a record of my technical concerns
in the bug database, but as the tone has changed I don't think it's appropriate
to continue this here. I wil
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-26
16:14 ---
This is obviously becoming personal. I wanted a record of my technical concerns
in the bug database, but as the tone has changed I don't think it's appropriate
to continue this here. I wil
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-26
12:57 ---
Subject: Re: Do not print default template arguments in error messages
"gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From gdr at i
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-26
02:01 ---
Subject: Re: Do not print default template arguments in error messages
"gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From gdr at i
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-23
12:55 ---
Doesn't sound right to me.
I think you should either show vector or include A in the "with" clause of
vector. I'm sort of inclined to the former; Don't forget that paramete
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-23
04:55 ---
"should GCC try and remember which arguments were really specified in the
template-id (hard to do), or a simple check of equalness between the argument
and the default parameter would suffice?&
38 matches
Mail list logo
