https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, but this would be an ABI break. When using the explicit instantiation
definitions in libstdc++.so allocations and deallocations will match because
both will come from the library. But if anything is inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|giovannibajo at gmail dot com |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This bug is still present in the COW std::string, which is still supported even
though it's not the default.
There are two problems. The first is the one reported by James Kanze, that the
string contents n
--- Comment #21 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-03 19:26 ---
A few issues of the current std::string should be really in suspended status,
thus clarifying that cannot be fixed within the current ABI. Anyway, in the
meanwhile, people are encouraged to try , a new, versatile
implement
--- Comment #20 from jamesc at dspsrv dot com 2007-04-03 16:30 ---
I can see this problem, solaris 10 and gcc 4.1.1.
The workaround suggested by the following person works:
Margarita Manterola
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-rc@lists.debian.org/msg67774.html
via Darren Long
ht
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-31
05:29 ---
Hmm, precisely two additional casts (or local unions), each in a
statement where a cast already appears, hardly seems like a "load".
But I'm always patient, right? It's just that anyplace a standard
const
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-24 09:45
---
> I have read the discussion on 17744 and 19163. Nothing there suggests
> that there is any reason to prefer using an __attribute__ over using
> the portable, stable, apparently already-working union approach, whe
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-24
03:42 ---
I have read the discussion on 17744 and 19163. Nothing there suggests
that there is any reason to prefer using an __attribute__ over using
the portable, stable, apparently already-working union approach, whe
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-23 10:30
---
> Somebody mentioned that using unions for type punning was described
Thanks Nathan for the clarification. Actually, however, we really want
to deal with those issues via appropriate __attribute__, we debated the
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-23
03:52 ---
Somebody mentioned that using unions for type punning was described
in the textbooks as extremely bad form. That's how I always thought
of it, too, but it seems, at least in Gcc, unions are now the right
wa
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-21 17:53
---
> Do I understand correctly that the FE fix has been applied? I don't
> see any corresponding __attribute__ in HEAD for basic_string.h.
No, largely __attribute__(aligned) is still broken, doesn't work with
depend
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-21
17:45 ---
Do I understand correctly that the FE fix has been applied? I don't
see any corresponding __attribute__ in HEAD for basic_string.h.
Probably _Rep should be aligned not to a constant size, but rather to
the
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-18 09:17
---
*** Bug 19495 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-10-16 20:09
---
Great! This means that, within the 3.4/4.0 ABI, will be able to provide an
additional range of improvements to the string class that I didn't expect!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 15:14
---
Ok, then this is mine for the time being. I will fix the testcases in comment
#6 and comment #7 in a short while.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2004-10-16 14:48 ---
Subject: Re: Alignment problem in std::basic_string
"giovannibajo at libero dot it" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I see this report is marked as a v3 report. I do not understand exactly what
| you still need
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 12:38
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I do not understand exactly what you still need to fix in C++.
I meant: I do not understand exactly what needs to be fixed in the C++ FE and
what needs to be fixed in v3.
--
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 11:10
---
I see this report is marked as a v3 report. I do not understand exactly what
you still need to fix in C++. I have a patch in my (long) queue which fixes
this:
template
struct S {
enum { K = 8 };
cha
--
Bug 8670 depends on bug 10479, which changed state.
Bug 10479 Summary: alignof and sizeof (and other expressions) in attributes does not
compile inside template classes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10479
What|Old Value |New Value
21 matches
Mail list logo
