https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 113812 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #13 from M.S. Babaei ---
(In reply to James Kanze from comment #9)
> Re using the init list syntax: it won't work if you have to be compatible
> with other compilers (like Sun CC). Using something like (Doh (x)), ++x
> seems to be the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #12 from M.S. Babaei ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> (In reply to M.S. Babaei from comment #8)
> > But this is a bug, and I see no reason why it hasn't been fixed anyway.
>
> I see plenty of reasons: It is a o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #11 from M.S. Babaei ---
(In reply to James Kanze from comment #9)
> Re using the init list syntax: it won't work if you have to be compatible
> with other compilers (like Sun CC). Using something like (Doh (x)), ++x
> seems to be the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #9 from James Kanze ---
Re using the init list syntax: it won't work if you have to be compatible with
other compilers (like Sun CC). Using something like (Doh (x)), ++x seems to be
the most portable work-around.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #8 from M.S. Babaei ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> You can use list-initialization to workaround it:
>
> Doh{x}, ++x;
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, it did the trick for GCC 4.4+. And, I've never
thought of that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can use list-initialization to workaround it:
Doh{x}, ++x;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
--- Comment #6 from M.S. Babaei ---
Hi,
I'm wondering if this bug is ever going to be fixed?
Unfortunately I don't know C and do not understand how inner parts of GCC
works. But, it's mid 2013 and the bug first appeared on late 2006, with anothe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ace.of.zerosync at gmail
--- Comment #4 from james dot kanze at gmail dot com 2006-11-15 10:10
---
Subject: Re: g++ thinks it is a declaration when it cannot be
On 15 Nov 2006 01:59:33 -, bangerth at dealii dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Note that in the actual code, Doh was
> > boost::mutex::sc
--- Comment #3 from james dot kanze at gmail dot com 2006-11-15 10:05
---
Subject: Re: g++ thinks it is a declaration when it cannot be
On 14 Nov 2006 21:33:34 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I you use
> ( Doh ( x ) ), ++ x;
> it works.
I know.
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-15 01:59 ---
Confirmed.
> (Note that in the actual code, Doh was boost::mutex::scoped_lock.
> And I fear that using boost::mutex::scoped_lock like this is becoming
> a widespread idiom.)
Ugh, this isn't an easy to read idiom...
W
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 21:33 ---
I you use
( Doh ( x ) ), ++ x;
it works. (EDG accepts the code unmodified)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
17 matches
Mail list logo
