From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24014 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2014 13:52:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23971 invoked by uid 48); 22 Oct 2014 13:51:58 -0000 From: "q.gcc@rsn-tech.co.uk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/63326] whether a #pragma is a statement depends on the type of pragma Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:08:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: q.gcc@rsn-tech.co.uk X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01675.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63326 --- Comment #11 from steveren --- (In reply to Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez from comment #10) > (In reply to steveren from comment #6) > > Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agr= eed > > to be confusing and undesirable by everyone except the gcc maintainers = :-) >=20 > Not sure how you reached such conclusion, but it clearly misinterprets > reality, otherwise this PR would be closed as INVALID already. Ok, my apologies. However, this bug /was/ closed as invalid before being reopened, and my own report was closed as invalid before being marked as a = dupe of this one, so it's not entirely clear that there's a general feeling of a real problem that needs to be addressed. > I'm pretty sure if you submitted a patch making the behavior of all pragm= as=20 > consistent with comment #9, But I don't /want/ behaviour consistent with #9 (ie, warning that the usage= is invalid), I want the usage to be valid /and/ sensible - ie, the same as oth= er compilers. I suspect that's more difficult... Don't get me wrong - I'm not whingeing that other people should solve my problems for me without being prepared to get involved myself, but if this = is WAD in the eyes of the majority, then I'll live with it sooner than create = my own fork! So assuming it's not actually beyond somebody completely unfamiliar with the innards of gcc, what would be the response to a patch which changed #pragma message from 'statement' to 'not-a-statement'? >>From gcc-bugs-return-464655-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Oct 22 14:08:16 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13906 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2014 14:08:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13612 invoked by uid 48); 22 Oct 2014 14:08:12 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/63609] incompatibility with C++11 standard on 14.5.6.2 Partial ordering of function templates Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:09:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed bug_severity Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01676.txt.bz2 Content-length: 729 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63609 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2014-10-22 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|blocker |normal --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Please don't set severity=blocker just because you think it's quite important to you. We're not going to block a GCC release for this issue, especially since it's been present in several releases already!