* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-09-29 0:00 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-29 15:46 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-09-29 15:48 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-09-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
2011-09-29 0:00 ` [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-09-29 15:46 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-09-29 15:48 ` Joseph S. Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2011-09-29 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com; +Cc: gcc-bugs, LpSolit
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
2011-09-29 15:46 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2011-09-29 15:48 ` Joseph S. Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2011-09-29 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com; +Cc: gcc-bugs, LpSolit
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-29 0:00 ` [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-09-29 15:48 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-29 15:48 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-09-29 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-29 0:00 ` [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-29 15:48 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-09-29 15:48 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-09-29 15:51 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-09-29 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-29 15:48 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-09-29 15:51 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-09-29 15:58 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-09-29 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-29 15:51 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-09-29 15:58 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-29 16:54 ` LpSolit at netscape dot net
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-09-29 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-29 15:58 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-09-29 16:54 ` LpSolit at netscape dot net
2011-09-29 17:03 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: LpSolit at netscape dot net @ 2011-09-29 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-29 16:54 ` LpSolit at netscape dot net
@ 2011-09-29 17:03 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-09-29 17:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-09-29 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-29 17:03 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-09-29 17:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-18 18:58 ` [Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methos lundberj at gmail dot com
2015-04-27 22:27 ` [Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methods paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-09-29 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methos
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-29 17:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-08-18 18:58 ` lundberj at gmail dot com
2015-04-27 22:27 ` [Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methods paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: lundberj at gmail dot com @ 2012-08-18 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methods
[not found] <bug-39813-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-18 18:58 ` [Bug c++/39813] improve __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for templated methos lundberj at gmail dot com
@ 2015-04-27 22:27 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2015-04-27 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread