--- Comment #39 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-21 18:50
---
Subject: Re: numeric_limits::is_modulo is
inconsistent with gcc
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM, veksler at il dot ibm dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #38 from veksler at il dot ibm dot
--- Comment #37 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-21 18:04
---
Subject: Re: numeric_limits::is_modulo is
inconsistent with gcc
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:04 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> Or suspend it. I think this warrants a defect rep
--- Comment #27 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-18 04:59
---
Subject: Re: mixed complex multiplication horribly
inefficient
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle
--- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-18 04:56
---
Subject: Re: mixed complex multiplication horribly
inefficient
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:27 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle
--- Comment #25 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-18 04:55
---
Subject: Re: mixed complex multiplication horribly
inefficient
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM, jan at epgmod dot phys dot tue dot nl
wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from jan at epgmod dot phys
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-12 11:06
---
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of valarray::apply method
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010
--- Comment #10 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-12 00:20
---
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of valarray::apply method
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010
--- Comment #15 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-06 22:21
---
Subject: Re: valarray uses __cos which may conflict with
libm functions
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2009-01-27 03:34
---
Subject: Re: C99 compat: Can't use the name INFINITY in
an enum.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:19 PM, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Thus, I am going to close this as WONTFIX. For C++0x, the
--- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2008-08-26 05:45
---
Subject: Re: Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:43 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from
--- Comment #15 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-12 13:06
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Bug 30416
|
| Author: paolo
| Date: Fri Jan 12 11:09:26 200
--- Comment #12 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 23:27
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Forgot: assuming we imagine the standard clarified per your proposal
| on
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:37
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Well, IMHO, avoiding this SIGSEGV is so easy, I would change anyway both
sh
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:33
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"sebor at roguewave dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #3)
| > The standard refers to "(l+n)%size(
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:32
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, th
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-09 22:05
---
Subject: Re: New: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"sebor at roguewave dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| AFAIK, the program below should have well-defined behavior bu
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-09 18:44
---
Subject: Re: warning for comparison of different enum types impossible to
control/is undocumented
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I could also add it to the
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-09 18:43
---
Subject: Re: warning for comparison of different enum types impossible to
control/is undocumented
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| What name do you want for th
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-09 18:41
---
Subject: Re: missed warnings about comparisons which are always true/false.
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Wextra warns for this, what is the bug?
I bel
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-09 05:28
---
Subject: Re: [hppa64-hp-hpux11.11] libstdc++-v3 fails to build with HP
assembler
"jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| We might just document that it doesn't wo
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 21:11
---
Subject: Re: wrong result
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > anther, consider an example definite[2] of 'offsetof', if you think
| > that is u
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 21:09
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong variable ranges due to constant
folding
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| That is most explict thing ab
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 21:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong variable ranges due to constant
folding
"jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Do the parenthesis matter in C?
Yes, se
--- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 07:02
---
Subject: Re: No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I really don't think turning off LFS and using lib
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 23:33
---
Subject: Re: Failure to diagnose overflow in constant expression
"andrew dot stubbs at st dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #6 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 12:08
---
Subject: Re: '#define false FALSE' undefines '#define FALSE false'
"pinskia at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: '#define false FALSE&
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 12:06
---
Subject: Re: '#define false FALSE' undefines '#define FALSE false'
"h8_spam at sonic dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Right, but since true and false are keywo
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 12:05
---
Subject: Re: '#define false FALSE' undefines '#define FALSE false'
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #1 from pinskia at g
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 12:02
---
Subject: Re: New: '#define false FALSE' undefines '#define FALSE false'
"h8_spam at sonic dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I ran into an issue where doing #de
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 11:49
---
Subject: Re: pure virtual function called on const & declared with previous
declaration without a definition, const & assigned by temporary
"mjtruog at fastmail dot ca" <[EMAIL PROTECT
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-01 09:47
---
Subject: Re: pure virtual function called on const & declared with previous
declaration without a definition, const & assigned by temporary
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTE
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-12-30 17:51
---
Subject: Re: a const member function can call a non_const member function
without const_cast
"hongleij at 126 dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| the question is : if a const member fun
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-12-30 11:21
---
Subject: Re: New: a const member function can call a non_const member
function without const_cast
"hongleij at 126 dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| //const_test.cpp
| struct A
| {
|
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-12-24 05:23
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV on operator==(valarray, bool)
"pinskia at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #9 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-12-23 18:50 -
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-12-23 11:17
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV on operator==(valarray, bool)
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| What target is this one, all I get is:
| t.cc:8: error: cannot con
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-10-28 03:19
---
Subject: Re: argument dependent lookup: what about built-in types?
"v dot vasaitis at sms dot ed dot ac dot uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Interesting analysis. However, wouldn'
--- Comment #24 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-10-24 06:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #22 from mark
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-10-24 06:32
---
Subject: Re: New: Issues with -Wchar-subscripts
"h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio dot no" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
| [This is both a C and C++ bug report, not sure how to classify t
--- Comment #21 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-10-24 06:18
---
Subject: Re: g++ miscompiles gcjx
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby, any news about this issue?
gcjx has been declared dead. I never got to have the issue fix
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-09-25 03:38
---
Subject: Re: variadic template support
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| For the record, personally and for what is worth my personal opinion
| in the compiler area
--- Comment #12 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-11 12:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] dynamic_cast disallowed too rigorously
with -fno-rtti
"benjamin at smedbergs dot us" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm not claiming that the behavior is
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-11 11:01
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] dynamic_cast disallowed too rigorously
with -fno-rtti
"benjamin at smedbergs dot us" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The documentation is incorrect.
The document
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-11 04:48
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] dynamic_cast disallowed too rigorously
with -fno-rtti
"benjamin at smedbergs dot us" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel, can you explain how it worked corr
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-11 01:20
---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2.0 regression] dynamic_cast disallowed too
rigorously with -fno-rtti
"benjamin at smedbergs dot us" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Code compiled with -fno-r
--- Comment #14 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-05 23:26
---
Subject: Re: vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Fixed.
Thanks Paolo!
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #3 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-04 00:09
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of sqrt(complex(-1.0,-0.0))?
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The difference between 3.4.x and 4.x is due to the builtins, therefore
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-03 23:01
---
Subject: Re: vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #6)
| > some committee members dislike
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-08-03 21:13
---
Subject: Re: vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| By the way, I think Andrew has a point, maybe not clearly sta
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-24 01:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ emits bogus namespace DIE
"drow at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ emits bogus names
--- Comment #10 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-23 23:47
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ emits bogus namespace DIE
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| (IMO, the ideal representation would have glob
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-23 23:45
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ emits bogus namespace DIE
"drow at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ emits bogus names
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-23 18:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ emits bogus namespace DIE
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| drow at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
| > --- Comment
--- Comment #1 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-17 23:57
---
Subject: Re: New: return type of valarray's sqrt function isn't valarray
"djg at cray dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The return type of valarray's sqrt function
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-17 20:19
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] Issue with anonymous namespace
"jason at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #3 from jason at redhat dot com 2006-07-17 19:53 -
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-17 16:51
---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2 regression] Issue with anonymous namespace
"jakub at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| template
| const char *baz ()
| {
| return str;
| }
|
| name
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-02 16:37
---
Subject: Re: Diagnostic about wrong use _Complex prints __complex__
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #3)
| > Indeed. However, we can a
--- Comment #3 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-07-02 16:03
---
Subject: Re: Diagnostic about wrong use _Complex prints __complex__
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Confirmed, we don't record in the preprocessor wh
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-06-23 16:35
---
Subject: Re: header dependencies
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I did implement a version of this myself, basically by writing a
| mapper around each containe
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-06-21 19:43
---
Subject: Re: use ODR rules to make C++ objects not be TREE_PUBLIC
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Yes this is all undefined but I rather have it be diagnose
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-12 21:47
---
Subject: Re: New: no warning for the non-standard integral overloads of math
functions
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| As a solution to "bug"
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-11 23:20
---
Subject: Re: template function not recognized when invoked with enum defined
in function
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #7)
| > Thi
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-11 16:47
---
Subject: Re: template function not recognized when invoked with enum defined
in function
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| It was not hastly closed, the curre
--- Comment #3 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-11 16:24
---
Subject: Re: New: template function not recognized when invoked with enum
defined in function
"ian at airs dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Compiling this file, with mainline,
--- Comment #57 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-09 15:15
---
Subject: Re: __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #30)
| > Defines __cplusplus to 19971
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 23:39
---
Subject: Re: valarray uses __cos which may conflict with libm functions
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| > Should all th
--- Comment #16 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 23:30
---
Subject: Re: goto crossing P.O.D. initialization
"falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #15 from falk at debian dot org 2006-05-01 20:55 ---
| (In repl
--- Comment #14 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 20:48
---
Subject: Re: goto crossing P.O.D. initialization
"acahalan at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I only ask that C compatibility be provided for code that would otherwise
fail
|
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 20:47
---
Subject: Re: goto crossing P.O.D. initialization
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| PR 27252 (aka PR 9278) is another example where C and C++ diff and in fact
--- Comment #12 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 20:45
---
Subject: Re: goto crossing P.O.D. initialization
"falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think this is a valid request. While random language extensions aren't
| us
--- Comment #33 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 19:02
---
Subject: Re: hidden declarations klobber STL
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I mean, it's a miracle your code actually does what you expect.
:-))
--- Comment #32 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 18:59
---
Subject: Re: hidden declarations klobber STL
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #14 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-20 09:37 ---
| (In repl
--- Comment #31 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 18:55
---
Subject: Re: hidden declarations klobber STL
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Well, two comments: first, I cannot reproduce with current mainline. Second,
|
--- Comment #24 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-30 23:05
---
Subject: Re: C-library symbols enter global namespace
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #20)
| > the
| > very same sourc
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-06 13:09
---
Subject: Re: When using excessive -ftemplate-depth g++ overflows the stack
"gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
| ( As an aside that suggests that
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-06 12:23
---
Subject: Re: When using excessive -ftemplate-depth g++ overflows the stack
"gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
| The standard says the limit have
--- Comment #1 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-06 12:03
---
Subject: Re: New: Structures are copied byte by byte into function arguments
"guillaume dot melquiond at ens-lyon dot fr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| With 3.4.6, the copy is d
--- Comment #19 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-03-17 23:37
---
Subject: Re: g++ miscompiles gcjx
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| is this still an active issue, or was it indicative of some temporary or
| transient thing in
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-28 10:13
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] Missed inline opportunity
"yuri at tsoft dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So there should be no performance-related bugs reported any more
| since you
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-28 09:02
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] Use of 'mov' may violate WAW dependency 'GR%, % in 1 -
127' (impliedf), specific resource number is 14
"wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL P
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-21 17:19
---
Subject: Re: Wrong attempts to create a copy of an anonymous object
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #31 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 15:53
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented when
removing gcc/ada and libada but not gnattools
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--- Comment #25 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 14:49
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| How would you guys design this?
That was explaine
--- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 14:52
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| GDR you commented on this before:
| http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #21 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 02:05
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think there is a misunderstanding on how our build
--- Comment #20 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 02:01
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I guess I'm left unimpressed at the current --enable-languages=c,
--- Comment #19 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 02:00
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The wiki mentions what needs to be removed also:
| http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #18 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 01:59
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTE
--- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 21:11
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 20:37
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #6)
| > But the point is that the build m
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 19:14
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| > Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c+
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 18:15
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Yes you forgot to remove the library and tools directory for Ada.
So w
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-08 22:30
---
Subject: Re: g++ bug, possibly introduced around gcc 3.4.0
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| try comp.lang.c++ first and then go from there.
comp.std.c++ is t
--- Comment #3 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-08 15:32
---
Subject: Re: -Wconversion fails to detect signedness conversion from int to
unsigned int in fuction call
"mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| ugh, that warni
--- Comment #25 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 04:00
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But that does not work for some assemblers/file formats (like Darwi
--- Comment #24 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 03:58
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
"ian at airs dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't feel that this PR should be suspended, at least not until we
| have
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 03:56
---
Subject: Re: support for type traits is not available
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The interest should really go to the committe than one
| implementation.
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-02 15:12
---
Subject: Re: error and warning count
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > IMO this is a useful feature because the number of lines of error output
that
| &
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 18:14
---
Subject: Re: no match for 'operator<<'
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I should note this is called argument dependent lookup (or ADL, there
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 12:50
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"Woebbeking at web dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floa
--- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 07:54
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"Woebbeking at web dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Monday 30 January 2006 02:09, pcarlini
1 - 100 of 390 matches
Mail list logo
