--- Comment #5 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2006-06-07 20:30 ---
FYI, it doesn't work in
gcc version 4.1.2 20060604 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27935
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28080
--- Comment #4 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2006-06-19 17:58 ---
Subject: Re: header dependencies
On Monday 19 June 2006 11:29, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-19 09:29
> Ok, let's see what we can do...
Wow, fa
--- Comment #7 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2008-11-30 15:36 ---
Any progress on this?
This warning could be really useful if only 1) would be handled. In its current
state I can't use it as I get too many "false" positives :-(
--
Woebbeking at web
--- Comment #10 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2008-11-30 15:46 ---
And if you've many overloads of a virtual function and override only one you
also get a warning. And in some projects this happens very often :-(
So I also support this suggestion!
--
Woebbeking at web d
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38557
Version: 4.3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40294
--- Comment #13 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-05-30 08:46 ---
If you're sure that it's a bug why isn't it fixed yet? Is it that hard that you
need more than six years?
Sure it's no show stopper but it's annoying. I'm using -pedantic and -ansi to
en
--- Comment #2 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-05-30 08:49 ---
Thanks, I didn't know which term I should looking for :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40294
--- Comment #15 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-06-01 10:28 ---
Ian, I know open source and I also know that some parts are more interesting
than others :-)
Most the time I'm a happy GCC user (sure, it could be faster but that's what
compile farms are for). But t
--- Comment #11 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2007-02-17 20:42 ---
Subject: Re: header dependencies
On Saturday 17 February 2007, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> I have some improvements in testing...
Nice to hear :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28080
--- Comment #7 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2007-03-12 09:37 ---
Any news on this? It's really annoying if you've many pimpls which often use
anonymous namespace.
--
Woebbeking at web dot de changed:
What|Removed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31147
--- Comment #2 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2007-03-12 14:22 ---
Subject: Re: increased size of debug information
On Monday 12 March 2007, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> It's more information - whether it's useful depends.
Wow, more than 50%. Are there any
--- Comment #4 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2007-03-12 16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=13194)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13194&action=view)
preprocessed qcombobox.cpp
I added both versions (4.2.0 and 4.1.2). It's compiled with
-c -fno-exceptio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
--- Comment #14 from André Wöbbeking 2013-02-10
15:50:14 UTC ---
Could anyone reply to my last question? Thanks in advance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #22 from André Wöbbeking 2013-02-20
16:31:47 UTC ---
Hi,
shouldn't
struct A
{
struct B {};
};
int main()
{
A::A::B b;
}
fail to compile? It compiles with 4.6 and 4.7.
Cheers,
André
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #24 from André Wöbbeking 2013-03-15
09:25:02 UTC ---
OK, I read some explanations in the duplicates but still don't know why this
should be valid code. IMO it makes no sense to write A:A:A:B and given the
facts that
1) people don't w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #26 from André Wöbbeking 2013-03-15
13:45:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #24)
> > 3) some other compiler don't compile this
>
> Which? Recent versions of EDG and clang both accept the testcase in commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Bug #: 56895
Summary: ICE: unexpected expression of kind arrow_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #16 from André Wöbbeking 2013-04-14
14:15:47 UTC ---
Thanks for your fast support!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
André Wöbbeking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #17 from André Wöbb
4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41425
--- Comment #1 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-09-21 12:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=18622)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18622&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41425
--- Comment #2 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-09-21 12:21 ---
g++ case.cpp is sufficient to reproduce this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41425
--
Woebbeking at web dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41425
--- Comment #5 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-09-21 12:53 ---
Paolo, but std::cout << static_cast(i); prints 5, so it's not the
conversion but the switch statement which is "broken".
Richard, if it's only truncation shouldn't case B be triggered?
--
--- Comment #9 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-09-21 16:46 ---
So it's ok to change the behavior in a minor release?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41425
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: Woebbeking at web dot de
Created attachment 30722
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30722&action=edit
Testcase
Hi,
I get an ICE with the attached test case when I compile with -std=c++11.
I'm using GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #12 from André Wöbbeking ---
Does anyone look into this? The warnings are really annoying.
FYI, Clang 3.3 doesn't warn about this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58273
--- Comment #7 from André Wöbbeking ---
Thanks!
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32282
--- Comment #2 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2007-06-11 11:42 ---
Oops, I searched for dynamic_cast but didn't find that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32282
boost::tie() = std::pair doesn't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbekin
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-09-15 14:54
---
Created an attachment (id=9735)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9735&action=view)
example code, save-temps and compiler error message
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23896
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-09-17 08:30
---
Wow, that was fast, thanks. I'll give it a try with the next Debian package.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23896
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-09-20 17:21
---
Works for me. I hope VERIFIED is the same as CLOSED.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-09-24 14:44
---
Hi,
I already thought that is the same as with KDE's artsd but it still crashes for
me (since GCC 4.0.0):
#0 0xb7857b5e in __gnu_cxx::__pool::_M_reclaim_block ()
from /usr/lib/libstdc++
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-09-27 14:38
---
Subject: Re: mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete its keys
On Tuesday 27 September 2005 01:03, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-09-28 17:16
---
Subject: Re: mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete its keys
On Tuesday 27 September 2005 16:43, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> If you are compiling with -fvisibility*,
> then the problem is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
André Wöbbeking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Woebbeking at web dot de
--- Comment
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22137
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-06-21 16:51
---
Created an attachment (id=9124)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9124&action=view)
preprocessed code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22137
t gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26020
--- Comment #2 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2006-01-29 23:40 ---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
On Monday 30 January 2006 00:32, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-29
--- Comment #10 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2006-01-30 07:07 ---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
On Monday 30 January 2006 02:09, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-30 01:09
>
--- Comment #12 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2006-01-30 12:03 ---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
On Monday 30 January 2006 08:54, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-04-24 15:23
---
Hi,
he's not complaining about the "new" friend lookup behaviour but about the
misleading error message. I had two similar cases and it was not easy to find
out what was going on. Hav
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-04-24 16:01
---
One additional note: if I use a named namespace in the 2nd case it compiles
fine. Dunno if this is a bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21181
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-04-24 16:17
---
Are you sure? None of the given PRs uses friend declarations. In my two cases I
only have to use friend struct ::S1 and all is fine but to find the broken
friend declarations is PITA.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-04-24 17:24
---
I see. Then I'm looking forward to 4.1 :-)
One last thing: is it a bug that the behaviour differs for named namespace in
my second example?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21181
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-04-24 19:45
---
Thanks for enlightening me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21181
up is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot
type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19404
in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:12442
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Woebbeking at web dot
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-01-13 10:07
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] name lookup is broken with friends
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 20:37, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
>
> Excuse me?
>
> The behaviour mandated by the C++
--- Additional Comments From Woebbeking at web dot de 2005-01-14 09:56
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] name lookup is broken with friends
On Thursday 13 January 2005 15:52, lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > So B's ctor uses the global A without the friend d
57 matches
Mail list logo
