--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 15:52 ---
fixed on 4.1 branch too.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #13 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 15:52 ---
Subject: Bug 26670
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 30 15:52:12 2006
New Revision: 116592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116592
Log:
PR c++/26670
* class.c (check_field_decls): Don'
--- Comment #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 15:51 ---
Subject: Bug 26670
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 30 15:51:17 2006
New Revision: 116591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116591
Log:
PR c++/26670
* class.c (check_field_decls): Don'
--- Comment #11 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-08-30
05:26 ---
reported against 4.1; bootstrapped 4.1.2 CVS with this patch with no
regressions. ok to apply to the 4.1 branch?
Matthias
--
debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org changed:
What|Remov
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 03:54
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-29 07:10 ---
Subject: Bug 26670
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 29 07:10:38 2006
New Revision: 116556
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116556
Log:
PR c++/26670
* class.c (check_field_decls): Unset
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-29 06:55 ---
Subject: Bug 26670
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 29 06:55:35 2006
New Revision: 116555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116555
Log:
PR c++/26670
* class.c (check_field_decls): Unset
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-28 08:31 ---
Or perhaps we should ignore the __attribute__ ((packed)) on nonpod_pack, since
one of its fields isn't safe to pack. Yes, that seems like the right way to
handle this testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-06 03:48 ---
Hmm, actually comment #2 does seem like a bug, both foos should compile
cleanly.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 20:38 ---
This is intended behavior: a non-POD type which has been marked as packed can
be used as a packed field. 13983 and 17519 are bugs in that feature.
In this case, nonpod_pack::n is not packed, so it is safe to pack fie
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-16 05:36 ---
And to PR 17519.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-16 05:35 ---
Hmm, related to PR 13983.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThis
--- Comment #2 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-03-13
23:53 ---
It's not just a missing warning, it also changes behavior:
int& foo(nonpod_pack& n) {
return n.n.i; // this passes
}
int& foo(nonpod_pack2& p) {
return p.p.n.i; // this ba
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-13 23:15 ---
Hmm, it does not warn about non-PODs which contain non-PODS which had been
warned about already.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
15 matches
Mail list logo
