[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-09-28 23:53:28 UTC ---
Jason, any tip about why DECL_FRIEND_PSEUDO_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION is indeed
true for B().fn<int>()?! I don't see any friend around!

Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813
> 
> Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
>                    |                            |com

Paolo, you appear to have removed gcc-bugs from the CC list of several 
bugs.  I don't know how you did it - our Bugzilla is supposed to prevent 
accidental removal of gcc-bugs, all bugs in the gcc product should always 
have gcc-bugs in their CC lists - but please add it back to the bugs from 
which you removed it.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[Joseph S. Myers]

Something is strange ... messages sent to bugs from which gcc-bugs was 
removed do in fact still go to gcc-bugs anyway.  So maybe there is no real 
problem with messages not going to gcc-bugs - but an apparent removal of 
gcc-bugs should not appear in messages reporting a change that presumably 
didn't intend to remove gcc-bugs, that's noise.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-09-29 15:45:44 UTC ---
Are you aware that *all* the new bugs do *not* have it?

Please explain that, if we want me to restore those CC (which I assumed were
just bogus/legacy stuff)

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-09-29 15:40:19 UTC ---
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813
> 
> Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
>                    |                            |com

Paolo, you appear to have removed gcc-bugs from the CC list of several 
bugs.  I don't know how you did it - our Bugzilla is supposed to prevent 
accidental removal of gcc-bugs, all bugs in the gcc product should always 
have gcc-bugs in their CC lists - but please add it back to the bugs from 
which you removed it.

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-09-29 15:48:40 UTC ---
Something is strange ... messages sent to bugs from which gcc-bugs was 
removed do in fact still go to gcc-bugs anyway.  So maybe there is no real 
problem with messages not going to gcc-bugs - but an apparent removal of 
gcc-bugs should not appear in messages reporting a change that presumably 
didn't intend to remove gcc-bugs, that's noise.

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-09-29 15:49:47 UTC ---
(and as you can see, this PR now is missing the CC, and all the messages we are
exchanging are sent to the gcc-bugs mailing list, no problem at all)

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin <LpSolit at netscape dot net> 2011-09-29 16:46:08 UTC ---
Our code doesn't CC gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org by default. This is useless as it
already gets bugmails for all bugs in the gcc product thanks to our Bugzilla
extension (was so since we upgraded from 2.20 to 3.6.2). If there are some bugs
with gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org in the CC list, then this comes from old hacks GCC
Bugzilla 2.20 had before I did the upgrade. You don't have to worry about this
as it has no effect on getting bugmails.

Once we upgrade to Bugzilla 4.2 (this won't happen before several months as we
didn't release 4.2rc1 yet), powerless users won't be allowed to unCC someone
else. We enforced this in 4.2 for the exact same reason as described here, i.e.
a user having fun removing another user account from the CC list. If this is
critical for overseers, I can backport and apply the patch to GCC Bugzilla.

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-09-29 16:51:28 UTC ---
Thanks for the explanation.  I don't think you need to do anything since 
the mails still get through - but seeing the address removed from the CC 
list is certainly confusing.

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-29 16:53:28 UTC ---
Arguably no more confusing than seeing it in the CC list on some bugs and not
others

[Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methos

[lundberj at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

Johan Lundberg <lundberj at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lundberj at gmail dot com

--- Comment #10 from Johan Lundberg <lundberj at gmail dot com> 2012-08-18 18:57:30 UTC ---
I confirm this issue with gcc 4.7.

> g++ outputs:
>   void A<T>::fn() [with T = int]
>   void B::fn() [with T = int]
> 
> I think that the latter should output:
>   void B::fn<T>() [with T = int]

[Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methods

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-04-27
                 CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com    |
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Mine.

[Bug c++/39813] New: [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[gcc at daryl dot haresign dot com]

Given the following code:
  template <typename T>
  struct A
  {
    void fn() { cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl; }
  };

  struct B
  {
    template <typename T>
    void fn() { cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl; }
  };

  int main()
  {
    A<int>().fn();
    B().fn<int>();
  }

g++ outputs:
  void A<T>::fn() [with T = int]
  void B::fn() [with T = int]

I think that the latter should output:
  void B::fn<T>() [with T = int]


-- 
           Summary: [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: gcc at daryl dot haresign dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

[gcc at daryl dot haresign dot com]

------- Comment #1 from gcc at daryl dot haresign dot com  2009-12-29 14:55 -------
I've just looked at this again. It seems the <T> is not being printed in the
second case due to the line:

1463       && !DECL_FRIEND_PSEUDO_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION(t)

in gcc/cp/error.c, in the function dump_function_name. If I comment out that
line, I get the <T>. I doubt the fix is as simple as that, however.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813