On 11/16/18 1:18 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:23:42PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
Thank you Marek,Appreciate your valuable feedback on the patch .
Attached the latest ,please do let us know your thoughts.
Thanks, this version looks good! Just some small nits:
--- gcc/
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:23:42PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Thank you Marek,Appreciate your valuable feedback on the patch .
>
> Attached the latest ,please do let us know your thoughts.
Thanks, this version looks good! Just some small nits:
--- gcc/cp/parser.c (revision 266026)
+++ gc
Thank you Marek,Appreciate your valuable feedback on the patch .
Attached the latest ,please do let us know your thoughts.
~Umesh
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:26:24PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> > Thank you Marek for the inputs .
> > >>I
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:56:15AM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + if (current_class_type)
> + inject_this_parameter (current_class_type, TYPE_UNQUALIFIED);
>
> I think you can remove the if here.
Actually you probably need it after all.
Marek
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:26:24PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Thank you Marek for the inputs .
> >>In the future, if using diff, please also use the -p option.
> We are using svn diif and other comments are addressed .
Thanks, but it doesn't seem like the -p option was used.
> please let us
Thank you Marek for the inputs .
>>In the future, if using diff, please also use the -p option.
We are using svn diif and other comments are addressed .
please let us know your take on the revised attached patch .
Thank you
~Umesh
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:23 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 09:55:39PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> My bad Marek and thank you for pointing that out.
>
> Please find the attached correct one (pr52869.patch) .
Index: gcc/cp/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/cp/ChangeLog(revisi
My bad Marek and thank you for pointing that out.
Please find the attached correct one (pr52869.patch) .
~Umesh
pr52869.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 05:18:40PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Thank you Jason and Marek for the suggestions .
>
> Attached patch(pr86512.patch) along the Changelog .
It seems you've attached the wrong patch.
Marek
>>We are runing the make check-gcc(x86_64) and will let know for any
>>regressions .
No regress found .
~Umesh
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:18 PM Umesh Kalappa wrote:
>
> Thank you Jason and Marek for the suggestions .
>
> Attached patch(pr86512.patch) along the Changelog .
>
> and also please not
Thank you Jason and Marek for the suggestions .
Attached patch(pr86512.patch) along the Changelog .
and also please note tested the patch for x86_64 only with "make -k
check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=g++.dg" and see no regressions.
We are runing the make check-gcc(x86_64) and will let know for an
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:40 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:49:55AM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > the following patch fix the subjected issue
> >
> > Index: gcc/cp/parser.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:49:55AM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> the following patch fix the subjected issue
>
> Index: gcc/cp/parser.c
> ===
> --- gcc/cp/parser.c (revision 266026)
> +++ gcc/cp/parser.c (working
Hi All,
the following patch fix the subjected issue
Index: gcc/cp/parser.c
===
--- gcc/cp/parser.c (revision 266026)
+++ gcc/cp/parser.c (working copy)
@@ -24615,6 +24615,8 @@
{
tree expr;
cp_lexer_consume_
14 matches
Mail list logo
