On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> I ran the tests for g++.dg/init thus far. Does this patch make sense?
The condition needs to be a lot more specific: DR 1748 only applies to
the non-allocating forms in [new.delete.placement], not to other
placement allocation functions.
Here, we had DECL_VALUE_EXPR of a structured binding referring to a
pass-by-invisible-reference parameter, but not being adjusted by
cp_genericize. We get here because we were looking through a
reference temporary. Removing that code doesn't seem to break
anything; I'm guessing that it isn't need
My patch to exclude assignments in the actual initializer from being
considered constant-expressions broke this case, where we represent a
trivial copy constructor with a MODIFY_EXPR. Fixed by indicating that
we are effectively in a call to a constexpr function.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applyi
On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 21:44 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Joseph, any further comments, or may I commit this?
>
> Is there a current patch version somewhere reflecting all comments so far?
>
The previous version had one comment against it, to remove
Hello everyone,
a one-line-fix for one of the test cases in pr69498. The refs count of
the ppr@ symbol wasn't set properly. Attached are the patch & the test case.
If I understand the 'Write Access' page correctly, this would be the
kind of patch I would not have to bother the mailing list wi
I ran the tests for g++.dg/init thus far. Does this patch make sense?
2017-03-20 Ville Voutilainen
gcc/
PR c++/35878
* cp/init.c (build_new_1): Don't do a null check for
a placement new.
testsuite/
PR c++/35878
* testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement6.C: New.
diff --gi
On 19/03/2017 22:17, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> Hello Paolo!
>
> Building older GCC releases with clang tends to issue warnings. This
> can be annoying especially when they originate from a header. While
> backporting r242743 I noticed that the non-C++ cases of the changed
> macro definitions in gcc/
Hello Paolo!
Building older GCC releases with clang tends to issue warnings. This
can be annoying especially when they originate from a header. While
backporting r242743 I noticed that the non-C++ cases of the changed
macro definitions in gcc/system.h are broken. Since GCC trunk is build
in C++ mo
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> HPPA and ARM maintainers on copy, if you want to add more appropriate
>> links, we can definitely do so of course, though I'd argue with none
>> of our users or developers raising this, probably not a lot of interest
>> in those specifically?
On 03/15/2017 09:40 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/15/2017 05:00 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
First, I agree that the less formal language is becoming more
acceptable. Some style guides explicitly allow contractions,
but others advise against them. The technical specifications
that significant par
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>> and finally a note in gcc-4.0/changes.html that NS32K has
>> been declared obsolete.
> We killed the n32k port eons ago.
Yep, see how I referred to a note in gcc-4.0/changes.html above.
However, at first my search failed since I was looking for ns32k
(all l
On 2017-03-19, at 4:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> It turns out both the hp.com link and the arm.com link now redirect
> to marketing pages, so instead of chasing forever, I decided to take
> them out.
Removal of hp.com link is OK.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 08:16:52AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > You now have added two entries for me; fixed like this:
>
> Oops! I missed the old one from four years ago since it wasn't
> sorted in properly vs Hans Boehm.
Fourteen years, and
On 03/18/2017 12:20 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Hi Richard, Catherine, Matthew
On Thu, 2017-03-02 14:40:46 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
On IRC we decided to wait&see for the TREE_NO_WARNING issue. So the
following is what I committed.
Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
On 03/19/2017 02:26 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Trying to find an updated link for this I noticed that the best
matches are now on ti.com, the best link, a PDF, I found has an
"Obsolete" watermark across all pages, we do not have a maintainer
listed in our MAINTAINERS file, and config-list.mk does
On 19/03/17 08:03, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> It turns out both the hp.com link and the arm.com link now redirect
> to marketing pages, so instead of chasing forever, I decided to take
> them out.
>
> HPPA and ARM maintainers on copy, if you want to add more appropriate
> links, we can definitely do
Hi Nicolas,
Is there some reason that you didn't use symbol.c(check_conflict)? The
conflict check could be added at line 547. If this results in
repetitions of the error message, then your patch is OK. Otherwise, I
would pop it in there.
Do you have commit rights? ie. have you done the FSF paperw
Hi!
I've committed the following patch to fix various OpenACC diagnostic typos.
2017-03-16 Jakub Jelinek
PR fortran/80010
* parse.c (gfc_ascii_statement): Use !$ACC for ST_OACC_ATOMIC
and ST_OACC_END_ATOMIC, instead of !ACC.
* trans-decl.c (finish_oacc_declare)
On March 19, 2017 8:53:16 AM GMT+01:00, Gerald Pfeifer
wrote:
>GCC 3.4.0 dates back to 2004, and by now everyone really should
>have updated their stuff to newer G++ / C++ standards. ;-)
Maybe this place is a good one to refer to the various porting_to.HTML pages we
have that list similar issu
ping.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> 2017-02-08 Palmer Dabbelt
>
> * MAINTAINERS (CPU Port Maintainers): Add Kito Cheng, Palmer Dabbelt,
> and Andrew Waterman as the RISC-V maintainers.
> ---
> ChangeLog | 5 +
> MAINTAINERS | 3 +++
> 2 files ch
Trying to find an updated link for this I noticed that the best
matches are now on ti.com, the best link, a PDF, I found has an
"Obsolete" watermark across all pages, we do not have a maintainer
listed in our MAINTAINERS file, and config-list.mk does not list
ns32k, and finally a note in gcc-4.0/ch
On Mär 19 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Index: doc/install.texi
> ===
> --- doc/install.texi (revision 246259)
> +++ doc/install.texi (working copy)
> @@ -4510,11 +4510,6 @@
> @anchor{sparc-x-linux}
> @heading sparc-*-linux*
>
It turns out both the hp.com link and the arm.com link now redirect
to marketing pages, so instead of chasing forever, I decided to take
them out.
HPPA and ARM maintainers on copy, if you want to add more appropriate
links, we can definitely do so of course, though I'd argue with none
of our users
GCC 3.4.0 dates back to 2004, and by now everyone really should
have updated their stuff to newer G++ / C++ standards. ;-)
Committed.
Gerald
Index: bugs/index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs/index.html,v
retrieving
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, David Miller wrote:
>> Okay to yank it?
> No objections from me.
Thanks. Here is what I just committed.
Gerald
2017-03-19 Gerald Pfeifer
* doc/install.texi (Specific) : No longer refer
to age-old versions of binutils and glibc.
Index: doc/install.texi
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> You now have added two entries for me; fixed like this:
Oops! I missed the old one from four years ago since it wasn't
sorted in properly vs Hans Boehm.
Well, perhaps a subtle attempt to get you to contribute twice as
much? ;-)
Thanks for catch
26 matches
Mail list logo
