[Bug c++/45265] GCC has an intermittent bug when computing the address of function parameters

["rogerio at rilhas dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Comment #55 from rogerio at rilhas dot com  2010-08-14 14:31 -------
(In reply to comment #53)
> (In reply to comment #52)
> > (In reply to comment #51)
> Look at the page history, it was removed by someone else, probably because your
> comment is badly written and not suitable for the Wikipedia page.

I thought that was your mom, sorry. We are alright then. When the guy removes
it again I'll tell him to ask you if it is true. If you don't recant he will
know I'm telling the truth.


> As with most of your comments, they are unfounded and easily refuted by
> checking facts, but you're so sure you know them that you don't need to check.
> As you've said before, learn to read.


Right, that must be it. As if I didn't backed it up with your own comment #35.
Boy, it will sure be easy to prove my post to be unfounded!!!



> Noone wants it to be a secret, everyone in the GCC project would prefer if no
> users shared your incorrect beliefs.



So do I. I don't want anyone sharing my incorrect beliefs. Did we just agree on
something here? So I'll tell the guy to talk to ask you.



> Check your favourite reference - the Wikipedia entry on cdecl says GCC is the
> de facto standard for caling conventions on Linux - so by definition what GCC
> does is correct.  It must be true, Wikipedia says so.


... unless it was your post! You tend to miss more than you hit. But yeah,
you've shut me up on that too. I just wrote that in my previous post.


> What are you talking about?  You were originally talking about initializing
> non-const references with temporaries.

Yes, that is right. GCC gave me the same error in both cases (aren't default
parameters initialized with classes the same as parameters initialized with
classes?). Probably my bad.

>  The code above would work fine, if
> you'd defined Color and Vector.
> class Color { public: Color(int); };
> class Vector { public: Vector(int); };
> const int WHITE = 0;
> const int VECTOR_Z = 0;
> class Idiot {
> virtual void func(Color c = Color(WHITE), Vector v = Vector(VECTOR_Z));
> };
> GCC compiles that fine, try it.

Yeah, you are right, your class does. But mine don't, the diference is that
mine are a bit more complex and derive a lot... but you were right, yours does
compile. And I was right, my code with GCC would have given me more trouble to
deliver to the client. But you are right, I posted an Idiot class. (see how
easy it is to admit when we are wrong? .. if you tried it you would quickly
gain a lot of practice! ... anyway, good job in reducing your error rate, it is
now close to a normal person!)


> GCC compiles that because it's valid C++.
> What is your point?
> Keep this up, future employers will love to see you making an idiot of yourself
> so publicly.


No, the worse is being wrong and don't admit it. When we admit we learn, so
I've been learning quite a lot with you guys. You didn't admit anything, so in
your mind LDT read accesses a still prohibitive, and crap like that. Or did you
think I would forget all the crap that you said that I shot down and you didn't
admit?? Your future employers (if any!) will see that your ability to learn
simple stuff is impaired.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265