[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893

Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com

--- Comment #9 from Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> ---
*** Bug 260998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seen from the domain http://volichat.com
Page where seen: http://volichat.com/adult-chat-rooms
Marked for reference. Resolved as fixed @bugzilla.

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-01-01 07:08 -------
This is a dup of bug 9381.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 9381 ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[dhazeghi at yahoo dot com]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893


dhazeghi at yahoo dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4                         |---

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[boaz at hishome dot net]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893



------- Additional Comments From boaz at hishome dot net  2003-08-13 11:48 -------
I have found a nice Work around that also introduces a very good code practice
Here is the code:

< c++ code >

#define __stdcall __attribute__((__stdcall__))
class AFoo
{
public:
  __stdcall  void foo(int i ,int ii ,int iii) ;
} ;

__stdcall
void AFoo::foo(int i ,int ii ,int iii)
{
    return ;
}

int main()
{
  AFoo afoo ;

  // now here is the nice thing Note the use of typeof() operator
  typedef  typeof(&AFoo::foo) Afoo_func ;

  Afoo_func func = &AFoo::foo ;

  for(int i=0 ; i < 0x8000000 ;i++)
     (afoo.*func )(1,2,3) ; // the code gets to be right this time

  return 0 ;
}
< c++ code/>

Well there it is. I am not sure how to make existing (Windows) code compile but
new code can use this syntax to have pointers to __stdcall member functions work
right. (I think that the fact this works shows that the problem is in the parser
and not the Generating of code.)
I like this syntax better than the classical one because, in evolving code,
typedef of functions-pointers do not have to change, when a decision is made to
change the functions prototype.

I hope this is any help
Free Life
Boaz

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-08-12 13:53 -------
On the mainline, the one you say got rejected no longer gets rejected but it is ignored and still 
produces the segfault so I was not totally wrong, just wrong for released version.

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[boaz at hishome dot net]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893



------- Additional Comments From boaz at hishome dot net  2003-08-12 13:49 -------
Sorry to be picky, but wrong again. The problem is that GCC will not let me
define an stdcall pointer to member-function. The bad line above is:

      void ( AFoo:*func )(int,int,int) ; // BAD

it should be:

      void ( __attribute((stdcall)) AFoo:*func )(int,int,int) ; // GOOD but ...

but this line produces an error where it shouldn't. And Also:

     func = &AFoo::foo

This line should produce an error (type mismatch) where it is bypassed
unsuspectedly 

Note the good syntax when none member are used (in the second example above)

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893


pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 GCC target triplet|i386-pc-linux               |i?86-pc-linux-gnu
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-08-12 13:34 -------
Note critical severity is only for use by the GCC developers for regressions since this has been a 
problem since 2.95.3 this is not a regression.

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893


pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|critical                    |normal
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2003-08-12 13:26:53
               date|                            |


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-08-12 13:26 -------
I can confirm this on the mainline (20030812), the problem is that GCC is ignoring it on member 
types of functions.

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[boaz at hishome dot net]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893


boaz at hishome dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |


------- Additional Comments From boaz at hishome dot net  2003-08-12 13:17 -------
Not true. It is not at all the same bug and this one has no work around. !!!!
I have seen bug #4507. As you can see this bug exposes a situation where an
__stdcall__ implementation is called by a none __stdcall__ pointer hence causing
a SEGFAULT. the Error is not in the code generation of the __stdcall member
function, that one is implemented correctly. The bug is in not able to define an
__stdcall pointer to a function-member and in allowing an assignment of
__stdcall __ function to a none __stdcall__ pointer. Please return the bug. Note
that it is marked "critical" since it breaks (with no way to work a round it)
use of COM technology on Linux. (Wine project)

[Bug c++/11893] stdcall pointers to member-functions handled wrong

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11893


pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-08-12 12:53 -------
This is a dup of bug 4507 which still exists on the mainline and 3.3.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 4507 ***