* [Bug c++/53173] PROD02
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-30 20:03 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2012-04-30 20:32 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org @ 2012-04-30 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2012-04-30 20:02:59 UTC ---
Uh, where are you reporting a bug in gcc?
(In reply to comment #0)
> I am trying to upgrade (GCC) 4.4.0 to (GCC) 4.6.2. I see bunch of incompatible
> error from code which works with (GCC) 4.4.0 but NOT with (GCC) 4.6.2.
Yes, g++ becomes better at detecting illegal code.
> 1. error: ‘constexpr’ needed for in-class initialization of static data member
Are you using -std=c++0x? Why?
> 2. error: no matching function for call to ‘std::pair<const long unsigned int,
> boost::shared_ptr<const
Obviously missing most of the message.
> 3. /usr/include/sigc++-2.0/sigc++/signal.h:38:11: error: 'ptrdiff_t' does not
> name a typeFix: #include <cstddef>
actually stddef.h if you want ptrdiff_t and not just std::ptrdiff_t (unless
there is a using namespace std, as 6. makes me fear)
> 4. error: no matching function for call to ‘make_pair(std::string&,
> std::string&)’
#include <utility>
> 5. error: declaration of ‘~typename
Missing most of the message again
> 6. error: call of overloaded ‘isnan(double&)’ is ambiguous
PR48891 maybe?
> I do refer https://wiki.edubuntu.org/GCC4.6 to fix some of the issue. I
> rebuilt boost_1_47_0, SQLAPI-3.7.35, etc. with (GCC) 4.6.2 as well to remove
> incompatibilty between these.
Gcc release notes often also contain relevant information, too.
> I am suspicious if some of the issue is already fixed in (GCC) 4.6.3 (already
> released).
What do you mean, fixed? The bugs are in your code.
> Please let me know if we can use (GCC) 4.6.3 instead of (GCC) 4.6.2.
Sure, more bugs fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] PROD02
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
2012-04-30 20:03 ` [Bug c++/53173] PROD02 marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
@ 2012-04-30 20:32 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
2012-05-01 9:37 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: shalja.rudra at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-30 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #2 from gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> 2012-04-30 20:31:49 UTC ---
Thanks Marc !
Sorry on missing most words in few error lines.
2. error: no matching function for call to ‘std::pair<const long unsigned int,
boost::shared_ptr<const a::b::c::dConfig> >::pair(long unsigned int, const
a::b::c::Config*)’
5. error: declaration of ‘~typename a::b::c::dControl<Data, PublicSecurityID,
PrivateSecurityID, ControlQueue, StatusQueue, Queue>::dControl’ as member of
‘a::b::c::dControl<Data, PublicSecurityID, PrivateSecurityID, FeedControlQueue,
StatusQueue, Queue>’
Please suggest.
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] PROD02
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
2012-04-30 20:03 ` [Bug c++/53173] PROD02 marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2012-04-30 20:32 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
@ 2012-05-01 9:37 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-01 9:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-01 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-01 09:36:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 2. error: no matching function for call to ‘std::pair<const long unsigned int,
> boost::shared_ptr<const a::b::c::dConfig> >::pair(long unsigned int, const
> a::b::c::Config*)’
There is no implicit conversion from Config* to shared_ptr<Config>, it was a
bug in GCC that the code compiled previously.
You need to create the pair with a shared_ptr<Config> as the second argument,
not a Config*
> 5. error: declaration of ‘~typename a::b::c::dControl<Data, PublicSecurityID,
> PrivateSecurityID, ControlQueue, StatusQueue, Queue>::dControl’ as member of
> ‘a::b::c::dControl<Data, PublicSecurityID, PrivateSecurityID, FeedControlQueue,
> StatusQueue, Queue>’
You're declaring a destructor with the wrong type.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] PROD02
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-01 9:37 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-01 9:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-01 9:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-01 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-01 09:41:34 UTC ---
Also, please give more useful bug descriptions, "PROD02" is completely
meaningless
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] PROD02
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-01 9:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-01 9:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-02 14:53 ` [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.2 errors shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-01 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-01 09:40:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> 4. error: no matching function for call to ‘make_pair(std::string&,
> std::string&)’
If you're calling make_pair with an explicit template argument list e.g.
pair<string&, string&> p = make_pair<string&, string&>(s1, s2);
then that won't work in C++11
Just construct a pair directly, it's pointless to use make_pair if you don't
want to deduce the argument types:
auto p = pair<string&, string&>(s1, s2);
or
pair<string&, string&> p(s1, s2);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.2 errors
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-01 9:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-02 14:53 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
2012-05-04 19:36 ` [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.3 errors shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: shalja.rudra at gmail dot com @ 2012-05-02 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #6 from gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> 2012-05-02 14:53:25 UTC ---
Thanks for the point, Jonathan ! I will make changes accordingly in our code.
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > 4. error: no matching function for call to ‘make_pair(std::string&,
> > std::string&)’
> If you're calling make_pair with an explicit template argument list e.g.
> pair<string&, string&> p = make_pair<string&, string&>(s1, s2);
> then that won't work in C++11
> Just construct a pair directly, it's pointless to use make_pair if you don't
> want to deduce the argument types:
> auto p = pair<string&, string&>(s1, s2);
> or
> pair<string&, string&> p(s1, s2);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.3 errors
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-02 14:53 ` [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.2 errors shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
@ 2012-05-04 19:36 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
2012-05-04 19:38 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: shalja.rudra at gmail dot com @ 2012-05-04 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version|4.6.2 |4.6.3
Summary|GCC 4.6.2 errors |GCC 4.6.3 errors
Alias| |GCC4.6.3_and_std::a
--- Comment #7 from gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> 2012-05-04 19:36:30 UTC ---
Hi All,
Now I am using GCC 4.6.3 and fixing our code to work with. The following
linking error got reported.
I looked on http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49445 and according to
this GCC 4.6.3 doesn't have it. Please suggest.
boost_1_47_0/boost/lockfree/detail/freelist.hpp:124: undefined reference to
`std::atomic<boost::lockfree::detail::tagged_ptr<boost::lockfree::detail::freelist_node>
>::operator
boost::lockfree::detail::tagged_ptr<boost::lockfree::detail::freelist_node>()
const'
boost_1_47_0/boost/lockfree/detail/freelist.hpp:124: undefined reference to
`std::atomic<boost::lockfree::detail::tagged_ptr<boost::lockfree::detail::freelist_node>
>::operator
boost::lockfree::detail::tagged_ptr<boost::lockfree::detail::freelist_node>()
const'
/boost_1_47_0/boost/lockfree/detail/freelist.hpp:124: undefined reference to
`std::atomic<boost::lockfree::detail::tagged_ptr<boost::lockfree::detail::freelist_node>
>::operator
boost::lockfree::detail::tagged_ptr<boost::lockfree::detail::freelist_node>()
const'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.3 errors
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-04 19:36 ` [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.3 errors shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
@ 2012-05-04 19:38 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
2012-05-04 19:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-04 20:12 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: shalja.rudra at gmail dot com @ 2012-05-04 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alias|GCC4.6.3_and_std::a |GCC4.6.3_errors
--- Comment #8 from gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> 2012-05-04 19:37:53 UTC ---
Fixing the alias of bugzilla update.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.3 errors
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-04 19:38 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
@ 2012-05-04 19:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-04 20:12 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-04 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-04 19:47:09 UTC ---
Bugzilla is not a help forum. Please find somewhere more appropriate to ask
how to solve your problems, such as the boost mailing list or the gcc-help
list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/53173] GCC 4.6.3 errors
2012-04-30 19:02 [Bug c++/53173] New: PROD02 shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-04 19:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-04 20:12 ` shalja.rudra at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: shalja.rudra at gmail dot com @ 2012-05-04 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #10 from gcc <shalja.rudra at gmail dot com> 2012-05-04 20:11:50 UTC ---
I looked into the similar post in boost mailing list
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/07/184266.php and it directed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49445
The email got bounced before using the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, may be the email
was not plain text format . It is fine now.
Thanks
(In reply to comment #9)
> Bugzilla is not a help forum. Please find somewhere more appropriate to ask
> how to solve your problems, such as the boost mailing list or the gcc-help
> list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread