[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-05-01 Thread gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- 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 reply to comment #12)

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-05-01 Thread falk at debian dot org
--- Comment #15 from falk at debian dot org 2006-05-01 20:55 --- (In reply to comment #12) > 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 > | use

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-05-01 Thread gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- 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 | to compile as C++.

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-05-01 Thread gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- 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 was | just fixed fo

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-05-01 Thread gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- 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 | useful, | compatibility wit

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-23 Thread acahalan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-04-24 04:10 --- When did gcc suddenly stop accepting new extensions? For years gcc has been more of a practical real-world compiler than a pedantic standards-only compiler. Many extensions have been added, both useful and useless. Just

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:53 --- (In reply to comment #9) > I only ask that C compatibility be provided for code that would otherwise fail > to compile as C++. This makes code reuse much easier. I showed two other examples which are (were) reprot

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-23 Thread acahalan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-04-23 20:39 --- Regarding Comment #8: Of course I do not want g++ to be a perfect superset of gcc. That is unreasonable, because it would break legitimate standards-conforming C++ code. I only ask that C compatibility be provided for c

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:21 --- (In reply to comment #7) > I think this is a valid request. While random language extensions aren't > useful, > compatibility with C99 is. Maybe somebody else can comment on this... There are a lot of differences be

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-23 Thread falk at debian dot org
--- Comment #7 from falk at debian dot org 2006-04-23 19:05 --- I think this is a valid request. While random language extensions aren't useful, compatibility with C99 is. Maybe somebody else can comment on this... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27235

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-22 15:34 --- GCC is not going to implement by default a non standard version of C++ (well some extensions are on by default but those are usually more defined than this). -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-22 Thread acahalan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-04-22 07:12 --- No legal C++ code would break if g++ were less incompatible with C. Why be incompatible? There are cases where gcc takes far greater liberties with the standards, breaking fully legal code. (trigraphs for example) The pr

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-21 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-22 01:12 --- What exactly do you want, no error unless you supply -std=c++98 -pedantic. that is not going to change sorry. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-21 Thread acahalan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-04-22 01:03 --- I saw it on Fedora Core 5, which I believe is gcc 4.1, and I saw it on a gcc which describes itself as: gcc version 4.0.3 (Debian 4.0.3-1) So that is two rather different gcc versions. One is x86-64, the other is 32-bit

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-21 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-21 16:18 --- Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html and provide all the information there which in case means the version of gcc. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug c++/27235] goto crossing P.O.D. initialization

2006-04-21 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-21 16:04 --- First what version of GCC you are using? Is it before 4.0.3? If so this is a dup of bug 20721. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27235