--- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-05-12 15:27
---
Fixed for 4.4.1.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-12 14:57
---
Subject: Bug 39546
Author: singler
Date: Tue May 12 14:57:35 2009
New Revision: 147439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147439
Log:
2009-05-12 Johannes Singler
PR libstdc++/39546
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-05-07 09:39
---
As agreed with Benjamin, please apply it to the branch too and close the PR in
two days or so. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #20 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-07 09:19
---
Fixed in mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #19 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 11:21
---
Subject: Bug 39546
Author: singler
Date: Wed May 6 11:20:35 2009
New Revision: 147169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147169
Log:
2009-05-06 Johannes Singler
PR libstdc++/39546
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-29 20:08
---
Agreed, Benjamin.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 19:42 ---
Eh, i'm ok with keeping the same bug report for the generalized case. Suggest
trying to get something in on mainline, test it out for a couple of days, and
then move to gcc-4_4-branch for 4.4.1.
best,
benjamin
--
--- Comment #16 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-20 14:44
---
I'm currently regression testing find_cstring_constify_equal_to.patch.
Shall I do a new test case for this PR with a non-copyable object
(generalization)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 21:59 ---
Patch in #12 seems fine to me for 4.4.1.
I remain interested in trying to use C++0x for some of the parallel mode bits,
including but not limited to cstdint, type_traits, functional, atomic, etc.
I hope to get back
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-15 13:56
---
Probably it's too late anyway for 4.4.0...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-15 13:09
---
Hi, and sorry about my delay. I think we should definitely resolve this in time
for 4.4.0.
I agree, the new proposed fix looks much better. Still, I must admit, there is
something I do not understand complete
--- Comment #12 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-07 09:10
---
Created an attachment (id=17598)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17598&action=view)
Patch differently parametrizing equal_to.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #11 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-07 09:09
---
I found a shorter solution: Just parametrize equal_to with const T& instead of
T. Better?
In general, passing the element to find as const ref is the safest we can do,
isn't it? AFAIK the other option is to not
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-01 09:49
---
To be honest, I don't like such tentative fixes. We are adding even more code
for essentially the same kind of work. There must be a better way to deal with
the issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #9 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 16:41 ---
We have duplicated binders because they have a changed parametrization, as
needed for parallel mode usage:
/**
* @brief Similar to std::binder2nd, but giving the argument types
* explicitly.
*/
template
c
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-31 11:34
---
I'm not sure to have all the elements to make a meaningful choice. Could you
please explain in some detail what's going on? Also, could you please remind me
why we have those duplicated binders in parallel/base
--- Comment #7 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 09:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=17569)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17569&action=view)
Patch adding new variant of equal_to.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #6 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 09:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=17568)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17568&action=view)
Patch adding new variant of binder2nd.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #5 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 09:52 ---
I have two patches, each of which should fix the problem. Both take the value
to compare against as const ref, which solves the array passing problem. The
first one is more general, introducing a new variant of bin
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last re
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-24 17:25
---
Johannes, can you have a look? To be honest, I'm not sure that using those
binders (with all the known limitations which led to deprecation for C++0x) in
dispatching functions really can be made to work also in
--- Comment #3 from suokkos at gmail dot com 2009-03-24 16:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=17535)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17535&action=view)
Source for the simple test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
--- Comment #2 from suokkos at gmail dot com 2009-03-24 16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=17534)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17534&action=view)
--save-temps test.ii from failed compilation in parallel mode
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3954
--- Comment #1 from suokkos at gmail dot com 2009-03-24 16:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=17533)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17533&action=view)
g++ -v output when trying to compiling in parallel mode
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39546
24 matches
Mail list logo
