Re: C++ patch ping

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:07:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Stage1: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662379.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662380.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662381.html > https://

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 10 C++ patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672040.html P1 - Fix ICEs with large initializer lists or ones including #embed [PR118124] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672041.html P1 - Fix up maybe_init_list_as_array for

C++ Patch ping

I'd like to ping 18 C++ patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/658137.html libcpp, c++: Optimize initializers using #embed in C++ https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659333.html c++: Speed up compilation of large char array initializers when not using

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 16 C++ patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662507.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662750.html CWG 2867 - Order of initialization for structured bindings - rest of implementation [PR115769] https://gcc.gnu.org/pip

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 16 C++ patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660046.html c++: Implement C++23 P2718R0 - Wording for P2644R1 Fix for Range-based for Loop [PR107637] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662507.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 2 patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660046.html c++: Implement C++23 P2718R0 - Wording for P2644R1 Fix for Range-based for Loop [PR107637] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659836.html c++: Attempt to implement C++26 P303

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/thread.html#656299 patch. Jonathan has acked the libstdc++ side thereof (I've added the requested #undef on my side), is the c-cppbuiltin.cc side ok for trunk? And, shall we (incrementally or right away) add some new tr

C++ Patch ping - Re: [PATCH] c++: Fix parsing of abstract-declarator starting with ... followed by [ or ( [PR115012]

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/651199.html patch. Thanks. On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:12:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The C++26 P2662R3 Pack indexing paper mentions that both GCC > and MSVC don't handle T...[10] parameter declaration when T > is

C++ Patch ping^2

Hi! On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:48:20AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I'd like to ping the following patches: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html > PR111284 P2 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html > PR114409 (part of a P1) > > http

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html PR111284 P2 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html PR114409 (part of a P1) https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648381.html PR114426 P1 Thanks.

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html PR111284 P2 patch. Thanks. Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/thread.html#645781 [PATCH] c++: Fix up parameter pack diagnostics on xobj vs. varargs functions [PR113802] The thread contains two possible further versions of the patch. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/thread.ht

C++ patch ping^3

Hi! I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches. - c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name [PR110349] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html - c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2741R3 - user-generated static_assert messages [PR110348] https:

C++ patch ping^2

Hi! I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches. - c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name [PR110349] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html - c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches. All of them together with the 2 updated patches posted yesterday have been bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux again yesterday. - c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patc

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590276.html PR102586 - reject __builtin_clear_padding on non-trivially-copyable types with one exception https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590641.html PR104568 - fix up constexpr evaluation o

Re: C++ patch ping

On 9/1/21 4:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:25:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-J

Re: C++ patch ping

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:25:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd like to ping the following patches > > > > libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html >

Re: C++ patch ping

On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html together with your https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577602.html incr

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html together with your https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577602.html incremental patch (successfully tested on x86_6

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 3 patches: c++: Add C++20 #__VA_OPT__ support https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575355.html libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html libcpp, v2: Implement C++23 P1949R7 - C++

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 3 patches: c++: Add C++20 #__VA_OPT__ support https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575355.html libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html c++: Accept C++11 attribute-definition [PR

Re: C++ Patch ping

On 1/5/21 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562099.html patch. OK, thanks.

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562099.html patch. Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/560372.html - v3 of the __builtin_bit_cast (with (hopefully) all earlier feedback incorporated). Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping^2

Hi! I'd like to ping the updated bit_cast patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557781.html Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the updated bit_cast patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557781.html Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 2 patches: - https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556370.html PR95808 - diagnose constexpr delete [] new int; and delete new int[N]; - https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556548.html PR97388 - fix up constexpr evaluation of arguments

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-March/541542.html P2 PR91993 patch If you think it is too dangerous for GCC10 and should be postponed, I can ping it after 10.1 is released, or e.g. if you think for GCC10 we should for all codes handle that way only orig_op0 an

C++ Patch Ping (was Re: [C++ PATCH] Improve C++ error recovery (PR c++/59655))

Hi! On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:02:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > Or do you want to use an additional bit for that? > > 2019-12-10 Jakub Jelinek > > PR c++/59655 > * pt.c (push_tinst_level_loc): If limit_bad

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00581.html PR92414, Fix error-recovery with constexpr dtor https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00808.html PR92458, Fix concepts vs. PCH Thanks. Jakub

[C++ Patch ping] Bunch of location improvements

Hi, On 02/09/19 16:28, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, all should be more or less straightforward. I also propose to use an additional range for that error message about constinit && constexpr mentioned to Marek a few days ago. Tested x86_64-linux. I'm gently piniging this very early because the f

[C++ Patch PING] Re: [C++ Patch] A few additional location improvements to grokdeclarator and check_tag_decl

Hi, On 23/06/19 13:58, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, here there are a couple of rather straightforward improvements in the second half of grokdeclarator plus a check_tag_decl change consistent with the other existing case of multiple_types_p diagnostic. Tested x86_64-linux. Gently pinging this.

Re: [C++ PATCH, PING^3] PR60531 - Wrong error about unresolved overloaded function

Applied, thanks for your persistence. On 5/31/19 3:06 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote: another ping On 12/05/2019 17:57, Harald van Dijk wrote: ping again On 26/04/2019 19:58, Harald van Dijk wrote: ping On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote: Hi, For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function t

[C++ PATCH, PING^3] PR60531 - Wrong error about unresolved overloaded function

another ping On 12/05/2019 17:57, Harald van Dijk wrote: ping again On 26/04/2019 19:58, Harald van Dijk wrote: ping On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote: Hi, For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function templates with explicitly specified template arguments as overloaded. They are resol

Re: [C++ PATCH, PING^2] PR60531 - Wrong error about unresolved overloaded function

ping again On 26/04/2019 19:58, Harald van Dijk wrote: ping On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote: Hi, For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function templates with explicitly specified template arguments as overloaded. They are resolved by resolve_nondeduced_context, which is normally called

[C++ PATCH, PING] PR60531 - Wrong error about unresolved overloaded function

ping On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote: Hi, For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function templates with explicitly specified template arguments as overloaded. They are resolved by resolve_nondeduced_context, which is normally called by cp_default_conversion through decay_conversion, but t

Re: C++ patch ping

On 12/4/18 9:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping PR87506 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01758.html You've acked the patch with the asserts but that FAILs as mentioned in the above mail. The following has been bootstrapped/regtested and works, can it be committe

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping PR87506 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01758.html You've acked the patch with the asserts but that FAILs as mentioned in the above mail. The following has been bootstrapped/regtested and works, can it be committed without those asserts and let those be han

[C++ Patch PING] Re: [C++ Patch] Improve compute_array_index_type locations

Hi, gently pinging this older patch of mine: given the previous create_array_type_for_decl change, its gist should not be very controversial... On 06/11/18 10:01, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, when I improved create_array_type_for_decl I didn't notice that it calls compute_array_index_type as h

[C++ Patch PING] Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84423 ("[6/7/8/9 Regression] [concepts] ICE with invalid using declaration")

Hi, gently pinging the below... On 29/09/18 21:27, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi again, On 9/28/18 9:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Thanks. About the location, you are certainly right, but doesn't seem trivial. Something we can do *now* is using declspecs->locations[ds_typedef] and declspecs->locatio

Re: [C++ Patch PING] [C++ Patch] PR 85065 ("[concepts] ICE with invalid use of a concept")

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi again, > > On 9/3/18 10:59 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> in this error-recovery ICE, upon the error make_constrained_auto assigns >> error_mark_node to PLACEHOLDER_TYPE_CONSTRAINTS (type) which then causes a >> crash later when hash_place

[C++ Patch PING] [C++ Patch] PR 85065 ("[concepts] ICE with invalid use of a concept")

Hi again, On 9/3/18 10:59 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: in this error-recovery ICE, upon the error make_constrained_auto assigns error_mark_node to PLACEHOLDER_TYPE_CONSTRAINTS (type) which then causes a crash later when hash_placeholder_constraint is called on it. I think we should cope with this

Re: C++ patch ping

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:24:02PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd like to ping the following C++ patches: > > > > - PR c++/85515 > >make range for temporaries unspellable during parsing and only > >turn them into spellable f

Re: C++ patch ping

On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: - PR c++/3698, PR c++/86208 extern_decl_map & TREE_USED fix (plus 2 untested variants) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00084.html ok, thanks -- Nathan Sidwell

Re: C++ patch ping

On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the following C++ patches: - PR c++/85515 make range for temporaries unspellable during parsing and only turn them into spellable for debug info purposes http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00086.html How har

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the following C++ patches: - PR c++/85515 make range for temporaries unspellable during parsing and only turn them into spellable for debug info purposes http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00086.html - PR c++/3698, PR c++/86208 extern_decl_map & TREE_USED f

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping following patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02066.html - PR83993 - fix constexpr handling of arrays with unknown bound http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02067.html - PR83993 - don't clear TREE_CONSTANT on ADDR_EXPRs in constexpr.c Thanks

[C++ Patch Ping] Two pending patches

Hi, I'd like to gently point to two pending patches of mine:     The updated fix for PR 81055 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid initializer for array new")     https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01428.html and also     PR 78344 ("ICE on invalid c++ code (tree check: expected

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01499.html - PR83556 fix replace_placeholders patch. Thanks. Jakub

Re: [C++ Patch PING] [C++ Patch] PR 82235 (Copy ctor is not found for copying array of an object when it's marked explicit)

Hi Jason, On 13/12/2017 23:27, Jason Merrill wrote: These two don't match: +   When initializing a temporary to be bound to the first +   parameter of a constructor where the parameter is of type +/* Return true if current_function_decl is a constructor +   and its first argument is a refer

Re: [C++ Patch PING] [C++ Patch] PR 82235 (Copy ctor is not found for copying array of an object when it's marked explicit)

On 12/12/2017 03:20 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 15/11/2017 00:54, Mukesh Kapoor wrote: Hi, This patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235 For the following test case struct Foo {     Foo() {}     explicit Foo(const Foo& aOther) {} }; struct Bar {     Foo m[1]; }; void

[C++ Patch PING] [C++ Patch] PR 82235 (Copy ctor is not found for copying array of an object when it's marked explicit)

Hi, On 15/11/2017 00:54, Mukesh Kapoor wrote: Hi, This patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235 For the following test case struct Foo {     Foo() {}     explicit Foo(const Foo& aOther) {} }; struct Bar {     Foo m[1]; }; void test() {     Bar a;     Bar b = a; } the com

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping two patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02521.html PR c++/83205 - diagnose invalid std::tuple_size::value for structured bindings; the follow-up with plural spelling is approved already http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 2 C++2A patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01235.html P0683R1 - default member initializers for bit-fields http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01237.html P0704R1 - fixing const-qualified pointers to members Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00937.html - fix compile time hog in replace_placeholders patch. Thanks Jakub

Re: [C++ Patch Ping] PR 64644 (""warning: anonymous union with no members" should be an error with -pedantic-errors")

On 09/15/2017 05:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, gently pinging this. On 16/06/2017 15:47, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, submitter and Manuel analyzed this a while ago and came to the conclusion - which I think is still valid vs the current working draft - that strictly speaking this kind of cod

[C++ Patch Ping] PR 64644 (""warning: anonymous union with no members" should be an error with -pedantic-errors")

Hi, gently pinging this. On 16/06/2017 15:47, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, submitter and Manuel analyzed this a while ago and came to the conclusion - which I think is still valid vs the current working draft - that strictly speaking this kind of code violates [dcl.dcl], thus a pedwarn seems mo

[C++ Patch Ping] Re: [C++ Patch] PR 79790 ("[C++17] ICE class template argument deduction")

Hi, On 14/07/2017 19:51, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 07/14/2017 01:32 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: While working on the bug I also noticed that we can simplify a bit the code generating the implicit deduction guides: if I'm not mistaken, when we pass types as first argument of build_deduction_guide

[C++ Patch PING] (was: [C++ Patch] PR 62315 ("do not print typename in diagnostic if the original code does not have it"))

Hi, gently pingning this: On 02/06/2017 10:35, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, a while ago Manuel noticed that printing 'typename' in error messages about missing 'typename' can be confusing. That seems easy to fix, in fact we already handle correctly a similar situation in grokdeclarator. Tested

[C++ Patch Ping] Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 80145

Hi, gently pinging this... On 23/03/2017 20:07, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, this ICE on invalid code isn't a regression, thus a patch probably doesn't qualify for Stage 4, but IMHO I made good progress on it and I'm sending what I have now anyway... The ICE happens during error recovery after

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 2 C++ patches: - P1 PR79232 - ICEs and wrong-code with COMPOUND_EXPR on lhs of assignment http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02341.html - P1 PR79288 - wrong default TLS model for __thread static data members http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02349.ht

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the PR77830 fix for out of bounds constexpr stores: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01319.html Jakub

Re: C++ Patch Ping

On 12/15/2016 07:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I don't think so. complete_type (error_mark_node) returns error_mark_node, and COMPLETE_TYPE_P (error_mark_node) is invalid (should fail TYPE_CHECK in checking compiler). I can write it as inst = complete_type (inst); if (inst == error_mark_node

Re: C++ Patch Ping

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:14:15AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 12/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd like to ping the > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00698.html > > P0490R0 GB 20: decomposition declaration should commit to tuple > > interpretati

Re: C++ Patch Ping

On 12/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00698.html P0490R0 GB 20: decomposition declaration should commit to tuple interpretation early + if (inst == error_mark_node) +return NULL_TREE; This check is unneeded, b

C++ Patch Ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00698.html P0490R0 GB 20: decomposition declaration should commit to tuple interpretation early patch. Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 3 patches from a week ago: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01995.html - PR77375 - wrong-code with mutable members in base classes http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01998.html - PR77338 - fix constexpr ICE on PARM_DECL with incomplete type http://

[C PATCH PING] PR43651: add warning for duplicate qualifier

On 04/10/2016 11:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/09/2016 06:28 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote: >> On 04/08/2016 08:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The name for new option "-Wduplicate-decl-specifier" and wording was chosen to match the same option in Clang. >>> >>> My version of Clang also warns

Re: C++ patch ping

OK. Jason

Re: C++ patch ping

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:04:16PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > >You mean: > > > >--- gcc/cp/pt.c.jj 2016-01-05 16:46:02.891896607 +0100 > >+++ gcc/cp/pt.c 2016-01-11 21:33:09.065184178 +0100 > >@@ -12207,6 +12207,8 @@ tsubst_decl (tree t, tree args, tsubst_f > > DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTA

Re: C++ patch ping

On 01/11/2016 04:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:44:46PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 01/11/2016 03:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02

Re: C++ patch ping

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:44:46PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 01/11/2016 03:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > >On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>Hi! > >> > >>I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000 > >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html > >>patch, fixing IC

Re: C++ patch ping

On 01/11/2016 03:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html patch, fixing ICE with GNU __thread vars in templates. Can't you unconditionally clear DECL_TEMPLAT

Re: C++ patch ping

On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html patch, fixing ICE with GNU __thread vars in templates. Can't you unconditionally clear DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO regardless of local_p? if (DECL_LANG_SP

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html patch, fixing ICE with GNU __thread vars in templates. Thanks Jakub

[C++ PATCH PING] Reject trailing return type for operator auto()

On 28 December 2014 at 20:21, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Any comments on this? Re-ping. :) The original message is https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01614.html > > On 19 December 2014 at 09:21, Ville Voutilainen > wrote: >> Tested on Linux-x64. >> >> /cp >> 2014-12-19 Ville Voutila

[C++ PATCH PING] Reject trailing return type for operator auto()

Any comments on this? On 19 December 2014 at 09:21, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Tested on Linux-x64. > > /cp > 2014-12-19 Ville Voutilainen > > Reject trailing return type for an operator auto(). > * decl.c (grokdeclarator): Reject trailing return types for > all conversion operator

Re: [C++ Patch PING] Re: [PATCH] make excessive template instantiation depth a fatal error

Hi, On 09/30/2014 04:51 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: I don't want to cause you more work Paolo, but perhaps this should be documented in https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html. ? Something like: * Excessive template instantiation depth is now a fatal error. This prevents excessive diagnostic

Re: [C++ Patch PING] Re: [PATCH] make excessive template instantiation depth a fatal error

I don't want to cause you more work Paolo, but perhaps this should be documented in https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html. ? Something like: * Excessive template instantiation depth is now a fatal error. This prevents excessive diagnostics that usually do not help to identify the problem. Thank

Re: [C++ Patch PING] Re: [PATCH] make excessive template instantiation depth a fatal error

OK. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch PING] Re: [PATCH] make excessive template instantiation depth a fatal error

... forgot to attach the complete patch ;) Paolo. Index: cp/cp-tree.h === --- cp/cp-tree.h(revision 215710) +++ cp/cp-tree.h(working copy) @@ -5418,7 +5418,6 @@ extern const char *lang_decl_n

[C++ Patch PING] Re: [PATCH] make excessive template instantiation depth a fatal error

Hi all, hi Jason, On 08/24/2014 12:11 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg01709.html Today, I picked this unreviewed patch prepared by Manuel back in August and trivially completed it by adjusting the testcases (all the tweaks seem the expected on

[C++ Patch ping] Re: [C++ Patch] PR 59165 (aka Core/1442)

Hi, assuming I didn't miss anything (I'm still catching up with my emails), I'd like to ping the below. Thanks! Paolo. /// On 12/10/2013 01:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, as far as I can see, this bug asks for the implementation of Core/1442, thus don't do a special K

[C++ Patch Ping] PR 58724

Hi, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01166.html Thanks! Paolo.

[C++ Patch Ping] PR 54485 (diagnose default arguments in out-of-line definitions for class template member functions)

Hi, pinging this patch of mine, sent beginning of September: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01435.html Just checked that it still applies cleanly and passes testing. Thanks! Paolo.

[C++ Patch PING] PR 54526 (again)

Hi, I'd like to ping this recent patch of mine: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02509.html Thanks! Paolo.

[C++ Patch PING] PR 53761

Hi, I'm pinging this patchlet: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01013.html For sure not an high priority issue, neither I can say to fully understand whether in C++ we can and should have the exact same semantics of the __transparent_union__ attribute in C, but I think that i