public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful
@ 2004-04-15 23:19 tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
2004-04-15 23:26 ` [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested bangerth at dealii dot org
` (15 more replies)
0 siblings, 16 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com @ 2004-04-15 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
when attempting to partially specialize a function template, the error message
is generated:
partial specialization `....` of function template
this is absolutely accurate, yet for someone stuck in a certain frame of mind,
it's not maximally helpful. Specifically: if it just doesn't occur to a block-
headed user (i.e. me) that a partial specialization of a function template is
illegal, the response is likely to be "yes, I know, that's exactly what I want
to do...so why is the compiler complaining?".
I suggest a change of the message to
partial specialization `....` of function template; illegal C++
or somesuch.
Thanks for considering this,
TJIC
--
Summary: error message is correct, but could be more helpful
Product: gcc
Version: 3.2.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
@ 2004-04-15 23:26 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-15 23:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-04-15 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-15 22:50 -------
Confirmed. I assume you had something like this in mind:
------------------
template <typename U, typename V>
void f(U,V) {};
template <typename U>
void f<U,int> (U, int) {};
------------------
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc:5: error: partial specialization `f<U, int>' of function template
Even though I consider myself an experienced C++ user, I have run into
this before as well, and a description of _why_ this is an error (because
the standard says it is illegal) would certainly be helpful. I suggest that
something like
partial specializations `...'; partial specializations of function
templates are not allowed in C++
would be a better wording.
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|debug |c++
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-04-15 22:50:29
date| |
Summary|error message is correct, |better error message for
|but could be more helpful |partial specialization of
| |function templates requested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
2004-04-15 23:26 ` [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-15 23:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-15 23:34 ` tjic at tjic dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-04-15 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-04-15 22:58 -------
For comparison here what ICC 6.0 gives:
pr14971.cc
pr14971.cc(5): error: an explicit template argument list is not allowed on this declaration
void f<U,int> (U, int) {};
^
compilation aborted for pr14971.cc (code 2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
2004-04-15 23:26 ` [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-15 23:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-04-15 23:34 ` tjic at tjic dot com
2004-04-16 0:28 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: tjic at tjic dot com @ 2004-04-15 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tjic at tjic dot com 2004-04-15 23:04 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
> Date: 15 Apr 2004 22:50:30 -0000
> From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-15 22:50 -------
> Confirmed. I assume you had something like this in mind:
> ------------------
> template <typename U, typename V>
> void f(U,V) {};
>
> template <typename U>
> void f<U,int> (U, int) {};
> ------------------
> g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
> x.cc:5: error: partial specialization `f<U, int>' of function template
Exactly.
> Even though I consider myself an experienced C++ user, I have run into
> this before as well, and a description of _why_ this is an error (because
> the standard says it is illegal) would certainly be helpful. I suggest that
> something like
> partial specializations `...'; partial specializations of function
> templates are not allowed in C++
> would be a better wording.
A fine improvement!
Thanks,
TJIC
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-15 23:34 ` tjic at tjic dot com
@ 2004-04-16 0:28 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-16 14:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-04-16 0:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-04-15 23:34 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| Even though I consider myself an experienced C++ user, I have run into
| this before as well, and a description of _why_ this is an error (because
| the standard says it is illegal) would certainly be helpful. I suggest that
| something like
| partial specializations `...'; partial specializations of function
| templates are not allowed in C++
| would be a better wording.
I agree with you. Do you have a patch around?
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-16 0:28 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-04-16 14:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-16 17:30 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-04-16 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-16 13:42 -------
This is so trivial that it can probably slip in without a copyright
assignment. I don't know whether this is the right way to handle long
error messages, and also note that this is completely untested (no
time, sorry).
W.
2004-04-16 Wolfgang Bangerth (bangerth@dealii.org)
PR c++/14971
* pt.c (check_explicit_specialization): Improve wording of
error message
Index: pt.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/gcc/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c,v
retrieving revision 1.816.2.23
diff -c -r1.816.2.23 pt.c
*** pt.c 31 Mar 2004 02:09:59 -0000 1.816.2.23
--- pt.c 16 Apr 2004 13:40:03 -0000
***************
*** 1696,1702 ****
template <class T> void f<int>(); */
if (uses_template_parms (declarator))
! error ("partial specialization `%D' of function template",
declarator);
else
error ("template-id `%D' in declaration of primary template",
--- 1696,1703 ----
template <class T> void f<int>(); */
if (uses_template_parms (declarator))
! error ("partial specialization `%D'; partial specializations "
! "of function templates are not allowed in C++",
declarator);
else
error ("template-id `%D' in declaration of primary template",
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-16 14:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-16 17:30 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-16 21:46 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-16 17:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-04-16 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-04-16 16:20 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| This is so trivial that it can probably slip in without a copyright
| assignment. I don't know whether this is the right way to handle long
| error messages, and also note that this is completely untested (no
| time, sorry).
Thanks for doing this.
I would suggest the slightly variation:
[...]
| --- 1696,1703 ----
| template <class T> void f<int>(); */
|
| if (uses_template_parms (declarator))
| ! error ("partial specialization `%D'; partial specializations "
| ! "of function templates are not allowed in C++",
| declarator);
error ("function template partial specialization is not allowed");
With that change, the patch is approved (can you commit?).
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-16 17:30 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-04-16 17:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-16 21:46 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-04-16 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-16 16:23 -------
No, I don't have any CVS writable tree checked out any more. Someone
else will have to do it for me.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-16 17:30 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-04-16 21:46 ` Zack Weinberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2004-04-16 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugzilla; +Cc: gcc-bugs
English would prefer "partial specializations of function templates
are not allowed".
zw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-16 17:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-16 21:46 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
2004-04-17 3:06 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: zack at codesourcery dot com @ 2004-04-16 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-04-16 21:24 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization
of function templates requested
English would prefer "partial specializations of function templates
are not allowed".
zw
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-16 21:46 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
@ 2004-04-17 3:06 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-17 17:52 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-04-17 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-16 22:33 -------
With which we are back to my orginal patch :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-17 3:06 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-17 17:52 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-18 18:02 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-04-17 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-04-17 17:28 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
"zack at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| English would prefer "partial specializations of function templates
| are not allowed".
If we must quibble, then I'm pretty sure English would prefer
"specialisation" ;-/.
More seriously, the terminology used in the C++ community seems to be
"function template partial specialization".
google should give some hits. I got 2 hits for Zack's suggestion
(including Giovanni's title) and lots for the version I proposed.
I still maintain "function template partial specialization", because
it is consistent with the rest of the terminology.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-17 17:52 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-04-18 18:02 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-18 18:08 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-04-18 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-18 17:35 -------
I think we have had this conversation before: should error messages
be in legalese, or in a language that a typical programmer would use
when talking to a colleague. I personally prefer the latter, Gaby
apparently the former.
However, if we continue to discuss these matters, we won't check in
any patch ever. Can someone please check in whatever (s)he thinks
appropriate? I'm happy to go with whatever...
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-18 18:02 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-18 18:08 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-18 18:28 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-04-18 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-04-18 17:52 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| I think we have had this conversation before: should error messages
| be in legalese, or in a language that a typical programmer would use
| when talking to a colleague. I personally prefer the latter, Gaby
| apparently the former.
No, that is a true misrepresentation of my position. I think the error
messages should
(1) use terminology established in the community, where possible;
(2) be simple as possible and comprehensible to C++ programmers.
Mistating my position does not automatically make your position
better. There is no point is inventing new terminology.
I've given hints as to how frequent you may find use of the
terminology I used earlier. Does the following help you?
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill17.htm
| However, if we continue to discuss these matters, we won't check in
| any patch ever. Can someone please check in whatever (s)he thinks
| appropriate? I'm happy to go with whatever...
I'm going to check the patch in a moment, as I'm checking in other
patches.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-18 18:08 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-04-18 18:28 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-18 18:43 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-04-18 18:45 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-04-18 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-18 18:16 -------
Thanks, Gaby. I apologize if I misinterpreted you position. I just sometimes
have the feeling that the terminology used in CS/language standards/similar
communities is not necessarily the same that is used by Joe User. Nevermind.
Thanks for checking it in.
As to researching on the web: If I search for the following exact
phrases, I get on google (don't ask me what the 'about' is about):
"partial specialization of function templates": about 105
"partial specialization of function template": about 21
"function template partial specialization": about 8
"function template partial specializations": none
What did I do differently than you?
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-18 18:28 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-18 18:43 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2004-04-18 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugzilla; +Cc: gcc-bugs
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-18 18:16 -------
| Thanks, Gaby. I apologize if I misinterpreted you position. I just sometimes
| have the feeling that the terminology used in CS/language standards/similar
| communities is not necessarily the same that is used by Joe User. Nevermind.
| Thanks for checking it in.
|
| As to researching on the web: If I search for the following exact
| phrases, I get on google (don't ask me what the 'about' is about):
| "partial specialization of function templates": about 105
| "partial specialization of function template": about 21
| "function template partial specialization": about 8
| "function template partial specializations": none
| What did I do differently than you?
I just lanched google for
"partial specialization of function template"
I got exactly 4 matches (against 3 yesterday), among which PR 7938 and
PR 14971 (i.e. this very thread).
"function template partial specialization"
led to 12 matches.
I did not try the plural variations as you did.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-18 18:28 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-04-18 18:45 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-07-03 2:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-03 2:06 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-04-18 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-04-18 18:25 -------
Subject: Re: better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-18 18:16 -------
| Thanks, Gaby. I apologize if I misinterpreted you position. I just sometimes
| have the feeling that the terminology used in CS/language standards/similar
| communities is not necessarily the same that is used by Joe User. Nevermind.
| Thanks for checking it in.
|
| As to researching on the web: If I search for the following exact
| phrases, I get on google (don't ask me what the 'about' is about):
| "partial specialization of function templates": about 105
| "partial specialization of function template": about 21
| "function template partial specialization": about 8
| "function template partial specializations": none
| What did I do differently than you?
I just lanched google for
"partial specialization of function template"
I got exactly 4 matches (against 3 yesterday), among which PR 7938 and
PR 14971 (i.e. this very thread).
"function template partial specialization"
led to 12 matches.
I did not try the plural variations as you did.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-04-18 18:45 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-07-03 2:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-03 2:06 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-03 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-03 02:05 -------
Subject: Bug 14971
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: giovannibajo@gcc.gnu.org 2004-07-03 02:05:30
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
Log message:
PR c++/14971
* pt.c (check_explicit_specialization): Clarify error message.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4157&r2=1.4158
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.877&r2=1.878
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-03 2:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-03 2:06 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
15 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-07-03 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-07-03 02:06 -------
Fixed for GCC 3.5.0, thank you for your report!
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-03 2:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-15 23:19 [Bug debug/14971] New: error message is correct, but could be more helpful tjic_gccbugs at tjic dot com
2004-04-15 23:26 ` [Bug c++/14971] better error message for partial specialization of function templates requested bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-15 23:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-15 23:34 ` tjic at tjic dot com
2004-04-16 0:28 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-16 14:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-16 17:30 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-16 21:46 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-16 17:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-16 21:46 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
2004-04-17 3:06 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-17 17:52 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-18 18:02 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-18 18:08 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-04-18 18:28 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-18 18:43 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-04-18 18:45 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-07-03 2:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-03 2:06 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).