Re: Valarrary regression (was: Re: [PATCH] HP/SGI extensions...)

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> | Finally, it seems that someone has reproduced the problem, on a different platform
> | too:
> |
> |     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-01/msg00030.html
> |
> | Gaby, what do you think?
>
> I think that the Standard and I are being caught by GCC/g++ being more
> and more standard conformant;  on one hand that is a good thing :-)

I see.

> | I have real trouble understading what's going on.
>
> That is an old issue in GCC for quite a long time: Historically
> access check in the front-end wasn't right.  On the other hand, there
> are access violations in the specification of valarray.  I made a
> proposal to fix them, but the committee was reluctant.  Lately, Robert
> Klarer arrived at the same conclusion as I and proposed to adopt half
> of my proposal, but to date there is no concrete decision.  Benjamin
> reported failures in some testcases, I thought I fixed them but
> clearly I fixed only a tiny part.  Working on another round of
> patches.

Thanks. I will try to do my best to understand your patches. Promised.

> Hmmm.  At Oxford, I thought I convinced you that template metaprogramming isn't
> black-magic :-)

:-)
In principle, yes, in practice the error messages are really abstruse for me. Can you
point me to something I can read to understand *what* "is private" in the current code??

By the way, can you confirm, that this valarray issue cannot be related in any possible
way to the my recent patches for the HP/SGI extensions, right?!?

Thanks,
Paolo.