From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20823 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2003 12:01:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20812 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2003 12:01:07 -0000 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030704120107.20811.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030702160617.11409.rth@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20030702160617.11409.rth@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/11409] [3.3/3.4 regression] using declarations and fabs built-in X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11409 ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-07-04 12:01 ------- Subject: Re: New: 26_numerics/fabs_inline.cc failure "rth at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: | PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. | | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11409 | | Summary: 26_numerics/fabs_inline.cc failure | Product: gcc | Version: 3.4 | Status: UNCONFIRMED | Severity: normal | Priority: P2 | Component: libstdc++ | AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org | ReportedBy: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org | CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org | GCC build triplet: alpha-linux | GCC host triplet: alpha-linux | GCC target triplet: alpha-linux | | The test case fails with | | .../26_numerics/fabs_inline.cc: In function `int main()': | .../26_numerics/fabs_inline.cc:33: error: converting | overloaded function `fabs' to type `double (*)(double)' is ambiguous | /usr/include/bits/mathinline.h:84: error: candidates are: double fabs(double) | :0: error: double std::fabs(double) I'm almost certain that this is a bug introduced by the handling of built-ins. I'm certain I recently raised this issue, and discussed the thing with Roger Sayle. -- Gaby