* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-08 18:57 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-10-08 19:32 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2007-10-08 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 18:57 -------
So the problem is new, right? Has it to do with the recent fixes for the
deadlock bug?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dougkwan at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-08 18:57 ` [Bug libstdc++/33700] " pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2007-10-08 19:32 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2007-10-08 19:50 ` dougkwan at google dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-10-08 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 19:32 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
errors)
> ------- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 18:57 -------
> So the problem is new, right? Has it to do with the recent fixes for the
> deadlock bug?
Looking at the testresults, it appears to have been introduced between
128587 and 128594 in September. The only patch of significance in this
period is Jason's 128590. It's not obvious to me why this would have
affected the behavior of -pedantic.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-08 18:57 ` [Bug libstdc++/33700] " pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-10-08 19:32 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2007-10-08 19:50 ` dougkwan at google dot com
2007-10-08 20:11 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dougkwan at google dot com @ 2007-10-08 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-10-08 19:50 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
errors)
That's strange. I am looking at it. I ran the libstdc++ testsuite
before and did not see this problem.
-Doug
8 Oct 2007 19:32:42 -0000, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
>
> ------- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 19:32 -------
> Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
> errors)
>
> > ------- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 18:57 -------
> > So the problem is new, right? Has it to do with the recent fixes for the
> > deadlock bug?
>
> Looking at the testresults, it appears to have been introduced between
> 128587 and 128594 in September. The only patch of significance in this
> period is Jason's 128590. It's not obvious to me why this would have
> affected the behavior of -pedantic.
>
> Dave
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-08 19:50 ` dougkwan at google dot com
@ 2007-10-08 20:11 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2007-10-08 22:35 ` dougkwan at google dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-10-08 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 20:10 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
errors)
> That's strange. I am looking at it. I ran the libstdc++ testsuite
> before and did not see this problem.
This is specific to LP64 hpux.
Did you test with 11.21 or 11.31? Possibly, <sys/pthread.h> has been
updated.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-08 20:11 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2007-10-08 22:35 ` dougkwan at google dot com
2007-10-08 23:01 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dougkwan at google dot com @ 2007-10-08 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-10-08 22:35 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
errors)
I only tested in Linux.
-Doug
8 Oct 2007 20:10:51 -0000, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
>
> ------- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 20:10 -------
> Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
> errors)
>
> > That's strange. I am looking at it. I ran the libstdc++ testsuite
> > before and did not see this problem.
>
> This is specific to LP64 hpux.
>
> Did you test with 11.21 or 11.31? Possibly, <sys/pthread.h> has been
> updated.
>
> Dave
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-08 22:35 ` dougkwan at google dot com
@ 2007-10-08 23:01 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2007-10-08 23:35 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-10-08 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 23:01 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
errors)
> I only tested in Linux.
This was not introduced by your change. The problem is the use of
an C99 extension (long long constant) in a system header. I
believe that this wouldn't normally cause a warning, but gthr-posix.h
contains defines derived from defines in pthread.h (e.g., PTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT).
Probably, this can be fixed by fixing the HP header. On the other
hand, maybe the warning/error shouldn't happen. Possibly, the defines
in gthr-posix.h that reference pthread macros need __extension__
before the right-hand side.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-08 23:01 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2007-10-08 23:35 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-10-11 1:26 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2007-10-08 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 23:35 -------
Let's remove Doug from CC, then, and thank him for his prompt feedback...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|dougkwan at google dot com |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-08 23:35 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2007-10-11 1:26 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2007-10-11 23:50 ` [Bug target/33700] " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-10-11 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-11 01:26 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess
errors)
> Looking at the testresults, it appears to have been introduced between
> 128587 and 128594 in September. The only patch of significance in this
> period is Jason's 128590. It's not obvious to me why this would have
> affected the behavior of -pedantic.
I should get my eyes checked ;( The test has been failing since
introduction in r128500.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-11 1:26 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2007-10-11 23:50 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-14 22:22 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-14 22:25 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-11 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-11 23:50 -------
Steve,
Does this bug also affect ia64-hpux?
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sje at cup dot hp dot com
Component|libstdc++ |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-11 23:50 ` [Bug target/33700] " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-14 22:22 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-14 22:25 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-14 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-14 22:22 -------
Subject: Bug 33700
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Oct 14 22:22:25 2007
New Revision: 129304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129304
Log:
PR target/33700
* inclhack.def (hpux11_pthread_const): New.
* fixincl.x: Regenerate.
* tests/base/sys/pthread.h: Update.
Modified:
trunk/fixincludes/ChangeLog
trunk/fixincludes/fixincl.x
trunk/fixincludes/inclhack.def
trunk/fixincludes/tests/base/sys/pthread.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
2007-10-08 18:16 [Bug libstdc++/33700] New: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-14 22:22 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-14 22:25 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-14 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-14 22:25 -------
Fixed.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread