--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2004-11-30 17:06 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning in
> I'd like to re-assign this to a g++ bug, or middle end or whatever. Sound
> like a plan?
Yes, certainly. I guess it's a front-end bug to w
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-30 17:03
---
Yo thanks G.
Wolfgang, the whole implications of adding copy ctors changing calling
conventions was not clear to me either, before the -Weffc++ changes. There was
some discussion of this at that time, and the
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-11-27 21:27 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning in
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Why are we getting this warning anyway?
I don't know why we're getting that warn
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-11-26 17:45 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning in
"bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > The diagnostic is nonsensical. The fix is to fix the diagnostic, not
|
"bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > The diagnostic is nonsensical. The fix is to fix the diagnostic, not
| > to paper over the problem.
|
| That's certainly the best solution. -Wsynth should just not trigger in
| libstdc++ headers.
yes, and even more in user c
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2004-11-26 04:33 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning
in
> The issue is not taking the address of the copy constructor, but the
> change in calling convention. It you declare a copy consttuctor, y
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-11-26 03:16 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning in
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I am not an expert in ABI questions, but in my naive world constructors
| are som
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-11-25 19:19
---
I am not an expert in ABI questions, but in my naive world constructors
are somewhat different than regular functions if they are declared
inline (and synthesized constructors always are):
- you can't take
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-25 16:38
---
Gaby can you look at this? Adding the copy ctor here will change ABI, so not
super likely.
Why are we getting this warning anyway?
-benjamin
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:19 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18644
11 matches
Mail list logo
