public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
@ 2004-09-09 1:13 rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:16 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 more replies)
0 siblings, 11 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-09 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
If NPTL is installed as the system pthreads, we have
# define PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP \
{ .__data = { .__kind = PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP } }
which cannot be handled by the C++ parser, and so we die
building libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/guard.cc.
The quickest fix might be to always use runtime initialization
of recursive mutexes for pthreads. Long term, of course, it
would be nice to support full c99 designated initializers in C++.
--
Summary: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
Product: gcc
Version: 3.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: bootstrap
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,jason at gcc dot gnu dot
org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-09 1:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:19 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-09 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-09 01:16 -------
Hmm, I wonder why I don't hit this as I have NPTL install....
I also wonder if really this is a glibc bug as they should have known that C++ does not have support for
C99 designators.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-09-09 01:16:11
date| |
Summary|c99 designators in nptl |[3.5 Regression] c99
|<pthreads.h> break libstdc++|designators in nptl
| |<pthreads.h> break libstdc++
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:16 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-09 1:19 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-09-09 1:26 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-09-09 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-09-09 01:19 -------
That's definitely a glibc bug. They need to fix it, or we should fixinclude
it. Even if g++ picks this up, some people will want to compile with
various older -std=... standards.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:16 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:19 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-09-09 1:26 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:50 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-09 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-09 01:26 -------
Cross reference glibc bug http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=375
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 1:26 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-09 1:50 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
2004-09-09 5:23 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk @ 2004-09-09 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-09-09 01:50 -------
Subject: Re: [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl
<pthreads.h> break libstdc++
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> That's definitely a glibc bug. They need to fix it, or we should fixinclude
> it. Even if g++ picks this up, some people will want to compile with
> various older -std=... standards.
It's the specific form of macro expansion here that's particularly
problematic, as it's not amenable to using __extension__.
To work as a static initializer it needs to be a brace-enclosed list, not
a compound literal which would only for C be accepted in such a case as a
concession in gnu89 mode. But being a brace-enclosed list, there's no way
of attaching __extension__ to it to avoid -pedantic warnings for C90 and
C++ even if designated initializers were implemented for C++. Of course
yet another syntax using __extension__ could be added for both languages
if really necessary.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 1:50 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
@ 2004-09-09 5:23 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 12:32 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-09 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-09 05:23 -------
Uli changed the header. I don't think there was ever a release with the
designated initializers there, so it's not worth fixincluding.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 5:23 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-09 12:32 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-09-09 17:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-09-09 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-09 12:32 -------
Actually, there is support for GNU designated inizializers both in the parser
(cp_parser_initializer_list) than later (reshape_init, for instance). Maybe
it's disabled by the fact that we always have pedantic-errors in C++.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 12:32 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-09-09 17:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-16 10:26 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-09 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-09 17:25 -------
Trivial, useless support. Try
struct S { int x, y; };
struct S s = { y: 1 };
The compiler won't accept that. If that were accepted, I'd have finished a
patch to accept a subset of c99 within about 30 minutes yesterday.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 17:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-16 10:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-18 14:40 ` robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-16 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-16 10:26 -------
*** Bug 17516 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |v dot haisman at sh dot cvut
| |dot cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-16 10:26 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-18 14:40 ` robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk
2004-09-18 16:26 ` v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz
2004-11-28 22:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk @ 2004-09-18 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk 2004-09-18 14:40 -------
As far as I'm aware, glibc "releases" are no longer made. It's up to the people
who package glibc to decide what's stable and what isn't. So perhaps this is
still worth fixincluding?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-18 14:40 ` robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk
@ 2004-09-18 16:26 ` v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz
2004-11-28 22:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz @ 2004-09-18 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz 2004-09-18 16:26 -------
I've filled a bug report about this problem into Gentoo's bugzilla and got
response. It should be fixed for Gentoo soon.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64236
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 Regression] c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-18 16:26 ` v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz
@ 2004-11-28 22:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-28 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28 22:16 -------
*** Bug 18709 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |debian-gcc at lists dot
| |debian dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17364
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-28 22:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-09 1:13 [Bug bootstrap/17364] New: c99 designators in nptl <pthreads.h> break libstdc++ rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:16 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:19 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-09-09 1:26 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 1:50 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
2004-09-09 5:23 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 12:32 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-09-09 17:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-16 10:26 ` [Bug bootstrap/17364] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-18 14:40 ` robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk
2004-09-18 16:26 ` v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz
2004-11-28 22:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
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).