https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115285
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114316
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90276
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Is there any unmentioned prerequisite to reproduce this bug ? I cannot.
Maybe thanks to PR11477 this PR could be closed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112477
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #20 from François Dumont ---
I run make check-c++ before and after my patch and I see no regression. I even
have less failures with the patch even if I haven't check yet why.
So I think the patch is quite safe, just waiting for valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111524
Bug ID: 111524
Summary: Missing support for inline namespace in spellcheck
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #17 from François Dumont ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
>
> many of the c++ fails are of this form:
>
> contracts-tmpl-spec1.C:(.text+0x6f): undefined reference to
> `handle_contract_violation(std::experimental::cont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #14 from François Dumont ---
Good news then.
On my side I only had some failures due to a faulty friend declaration in
gnu-versioned-namespace mode in for which I've submitted a patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2023-Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont ---
This is because you are facing the PR65762 issue. I just attached a path
proposal to it that you need to apply too to be able to run your test. You'll
be even able to simply use --disable-libstdcxx-dual-ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65762
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 55834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55834&action=edit
Patch proposal
Here is a proposal that I'll submit on libstdc++ mailing list once PR83077 is
fixed. Note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
For sure _Hash_node layout didn't change, that's why I couldn't think of any
abi issue here.
I see that you already had the solution ! It was some kind of test then, I
failed :-).
Did you try it ? If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628399.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91263
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107189
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103621
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107189
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-12
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105717
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99402
--- Comment #13 from François Dumont ---
Fixed on gcc-10 branch by this commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=ab83ce42ea0b2fbc09d51b7bd5e69905dcaa2041.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99402
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95079
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Thanks for the feedback.
If this is still a problem for you after this enhancement you should perhaps
try the _Power2_rehash_policy provided as an extension. In
testsuite/23_containers/unordered_set/insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95079
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83938
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
30 matches
Mail list logo
