BorlandTalk.com Borland discussion newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Past bugs reported Goto page 1, 2  Next          BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Edward Diener Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:03 am    Post subject: Past bugs reported I was using QC to check to see if Borland had fixed any of the bugs I reported in the past. First I would like to thank Alisdair Meredith for actually bringing some of these longstanding bugs to the attention of Borland. Still a bug I reported, a very trivial one, over 5 years ago is still not fixed ( 707 ) although now thanks to Mr. Meredith it as actually been opened. A number of supposed resolutions baffled me, however. I do not know if these have been fixed in the latest BCB release since I do not have it but I am curious how the so-called resolution can have been written. Bug number 2058 is a clear error. The comment by a Robert Ehteshamzadeh to it is "As Designed, see workaround". Bug number 2088 also is a clear error. The comment, by the same person as in the previous bug, is "Won't do, see workaround". I reported workarounds to both bugs when I originally reported them. Bug number 1667 is also a clear error. Robert Ehteshamzadeh presents a workaround but surely the bug can not be "As designed." This must be a new Borland tactic. If there is a workaround, even if there is a clear bug, Borland does not fix it and either marks it as designed or they will not fix the bug. OTOH if these bugs are actually fixed in the latest C++ Builder, they should be clearly marked so. I am encouraged by what I see. Maybe if Borland actually fixes the rest of the compiler bugs reported in the past by myself and others in a further update, and starts paying attention to Boost and any problems the C++ Builder compiler has dealing with Boost libraries, I can actually but the latest product and consider that my money is well spent and for a purpose. Back to top Edward Diener Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported David Dean wrote: Quote: In article <441b875a$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com>, Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote: Bug number 2058 is a clear error. The comment by a Robert Ehteshamzadeh to it is "As Designed, see workaround". This compiles fine in BCB 2006. I assume that this is because of the switch to dinkumware. Bug number 2088 also is a clear error. The comment, by the same person as in the previous bug, is "Won't do, see workaround". This one comes up with a strange error in BCB 2006: E2166 Destructor for 'std::messages<char>' is not accessible. I suppose a new report should be made for this one. Bug number 1667 is also a clear error. Robert Ehteshamzadeh presents a workaround but surely the bug can not be "As designed." This bug is fixed in BCB 2006. OTOH if these bugs are actually fixed in the latest C++ Builder, they should be clearly marked so. I could mark 2058 and 1667 for attention, but I don't know if the higher level sysops would want to change reports that are already closed. Thanks for checking these out. If a bug has been fixed in BCB 2006, I think the bug report should day so, else how does one know if a bug still applies to the latest version ? Back to top David Dean Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported In article <441b875a$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com>, Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Bug number 2058 is a clear error. The comment by a Robert Ehteshamzadeh to it is "As Designed, see workaround". This compiles fine in BCB 2006. I assume that this is because of the switch to dinkumware. Quote: Bug number 2088 also is a clear error. The comment, by the same person as in the previous bug, is "Won't do, see workaround". This one comes up with a strange error in BCB 2006: E2166 Destructor for 'std::messages<char>' is not accessible. I suppose a new report should be made for this one. Quote: Bug number 1667 is also a clear error. Robert Ehteshamzadeh presents a workaround but surely the bug can not be "As designed." This bug is fixed in BCB 2006. Quote: OTOH if these bugs are actually fixed in the latest C++ Builder, they should be clearly marked so. I could mark 2058 and 1667 for attention, but I don't know if the higher level sysops would want to change reports that are already closed. -- -David Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Back to top David Dean Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported In article <441b8f24$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com>, John Grabner <grabnerj (AT) ihug (DOT) co.nz> wrote: Quote: This now correctly generate an error that the destructor is inaccessible. Confirmed with Comeau online. Why would the destructor be inaccessible? -- -David Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Back to top John Grabner Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported Edward Diener wrote: Quote: Bug number 2058 is a clear error. The comment by a Robert Ehteshamzadeh to it is "As Designed, see workaround". Compiles without error in BDS2006 Update 1. Bug number 2088 also is a clear error. The comment, by the same person as in the previous bug, is "Won't do, see workaround". This now correctly generate an error that the destructor is inaccessible. Confirmed with Comeau online. Quote: I reported workarounds to both bugs when I originally reported them. Bug number 1667 is also a clear error. Robert Ehteshamzadeh presents a workaround but surely the bug can not be "As designed." Tested the program in steps. Typing 'x' gives a result of 0. This must be a new Borland tactic. If there is a workaround, even if there is a clear bug, Borland does not fix it and either marks it as designed or they will not fix the bug. OTOH if these bugs are actually fixed in the latest C++ Builder, they should be clearly marked so. I am encouraged by what I see. Maybe if Borland actually fixes the rest of the compiler bugs reported in the past by myself and others in a further update, and starts paying attention to Boost and any problems the C++ Builder compiler has dealing with Boost libraries, I can actually but the latest product and consider that my money is well spent and for a purpose. I suspect that these resolutions applied to BCB6. And as they where closed they where not opened for BDS2006. John. Back to top Remy Lebeau (TeamB) Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported "David Dean" <ozchzhq02 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:ozchzhq02-61B4D2.23501117032006 (AT) frylock (DOT) local... Quote: Why would the destructor be inaccessible? Look in $(BCB)\Include\Rw\messages.h and $(BCB)\Include\stl\_messages_facets.h. The destructor for std::messages<char> is declared as protected, not public, for both the RogueWave and STLPort implementations of the STL. That suggests to me that std::messages is never supposed to be instantiated directly, but directed from since only descendant classes can access protected members. Also, in the STLPort implementation, std::messages<char> has a second public constructor, hense Edward's reported ambiquity when passing 0 as a constuctor parameter, since 0 can satisfy both constructors. STLPort is the default STL library for BCB6. If you define _USE_OLD_RW_STL in the Project's Conditionals list, then RogueWave will be used instead of STLPort, and the ambiquity will not occur since there is no second public constructor in the RogueWave implementation. Gambit Back to top Remy Lebeau (TeamB) Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported "Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) spam.com> wrote in message news:441bcf23$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Quote: That suggests to me that std::messages is never supposed to be instantiated directly, but *directed* from since only descendant classes can access protected members. I meant *derived* from. Gambit Back to top Remy Lebeau (TeamB) Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported "Edward Diener" <eddielee_no_spam_here (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote in message news:441b954c (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Quote: Thanks for checking these out. If a bug has been fixed in BCB 2006, I think the bug report should day so, else how does one know if a bug still applies to the latest version ? In order for Borland to see bug reports in the first place, a QC report has to be tied to a report in Borland's own internal issue tracker by a QC sysop. When an issue is closed in the internal tracker, the resolution is not pushed back into QC automatically. That has to be done manually whenever a Borland employee gets around to it from time to time. Besides, three of the four issue reports that you mentioned earlier are not tied to any internal reports at all, and they were closed individually a long time ago. So there is no "fixed" resolution available for them, even if they are fixed or not. Gambit Back to top Edward Diener Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote: Quote: "Edward Diener" <eddielee_no_spam_here (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote in message news:441b954c (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Thanks for checking these out. If a bug has been fixed in BCB 2006, I think the bug report should day so, else how does one know if a bug still applies to the latest version ? In order for Borland to see bug reports in the first place, a QC report has to be tied to a report in Borland's own internal issue tracker by a QC sysop. When an issue is closed in the internal tracker, the resolution is not pushed back into QC automatically. That has to be done manually whenever a Borland employee gets around to it from time to time. Besides, three of the four issue reports that you mentioned earlier are not tied to any internal reports at all, and they were closed individually a long time ago. So there is no "fixed" resolution available for them, even if they are fixed or not. This is an obviously flawed system as it does not tell the user of it whether or not a reported bug has been fixed in a later version. Back to top David Dean Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported In article <441b954c (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com>, Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Thanks for checking these out. If a bug has been fixed in BCB 2006, I think the bug report should day so, else how does one know if a bug still applies to the latest version ? I agree, I just suspect that the sysops are busier right now getting the 300-400 C++ reports that are in the reported status duplicated and open/closed as appropriate. I don't know how many sysops there are that look at the C++ side. I think the number is pretty small though. Of the reports I have marked for attention, (IIRC) Alisdair and Mathias are the only two regulars who aren't Borland employees that have dealt with them. -- -David Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Back to top David Dean Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported In article <441bcf23$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com>, "Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) spam.com> wrote: Quote: That suggests to me that std::messages is never supposed to be instantiated directly, but directed from since only descendant classes can access protected members. OK that makes sense (assuming directed->derived)... Thanks Remy. -- -David Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Back to top AlisdairM Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported Edward Diener wrote: Quote: First I would like to thank Alisdair Meredith for actually bringing some of these longstanding bugs to the attention of Borland. Much as I appreciate the credit, much of the verification is due to David Dean, who always manages to get there before me! Most of my time is spent simply confirming and opening reports he has flagged for attention <g> I will see if we can clean up the results on the reports you mentioned though, and about clearing up any of your remaining reports that have not been addressed yet. Sadly it is too late for you, but they were good reports and I hope the rest of us will benefit from them still. Thanks for checking in again, hope we have better news next time! -- AlisdairM(TeamB) Back to top tinyabs Guest Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported Here's Microsoft equivalent of QC. http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/default.aspx Back to top Jonathan Benedicto Guest Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote: Quote: I don't know that, either. But I am a QC sysop, but I don't look through QC very often. If a user posts a problem in the newsgroups and it has a QC report for it, and if I think it is an important issue, then I will push it into Borland's internal tracker right then and there. But that happens very infrequently. So we should post our QC reports here ? :-) Jonathan Back to top Remy Lebeau (TeamB) Guest Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:03 am    Post subject: Re: Past bugs reported "David Dean" <ozchzhq02 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:ozchzhq02-312AEC.07171518032006 (AT) frylock (DOT) local... Quote: I don't know how many sysops there are that look at the C++ side. I think the number is pretty small though. I don't know that, either. But I am a QC sysop, but I don't look through QC very often. If a user posts a problem in the newsgroups and it has a QC report for it, and if I think it is an important issue, then I will push it into Borland's internal tracker right then and there. But that happens very infrequently. Gambit Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C++ Builder Newsgroups----------------C++ BuilderC++ Builder (ActiveX)C++ Builder (Announcements)C++ Builder (Command Line Tools)C++ Builder DatabasesC++ Builder Databases (ADO)C++ Builder Databases (Desktop)C++ Builder Databases (InterBase Express)C++ Builder Databases (Multi-Tier)C++ Builder Databases (SQL Servers)C++ Builder (Graphics)C++ Builder (IDE)C++ Builder (Internet)C++ Builder (Internet Socket)C++ Builder (Internet Web)C++ Builder (Jobs)C++ Builder (Language)C++ Builder (Language C++)C++ Builder (Compatibility with MFC)C++ Builder (Native API)C++ Builder (Non-Technical)C++ Builder (Students)C++ Builder (Third Party Tools)C++ Builder (Upgrade)C++ Builder (VCL)C++ Builder (VCL Components Usage)C++ Builder (VCL Components Development)C++ Builder (VCL Usage)C++ Builder (WinAPI)C++ Builder Installation Delphi Newsgroups----------------Delphi (General)Delphi ActiveX Controls UsageDelphi ActiveX Controls DevelopmentDelphi As400Delphi DatabasesDelphi Databases (ADO)Delphi Databases (dbExpress)Delphi Databases (Desktop)Delphi Databases (InterBase Express)Delphi Databases (Multi-Tier)Delphi Databases (SQL Servers)Delphi DeploymentDelphi GraphicsDelphi IDEDelphi InternationalizationDelphi InternetDelphi Internet Isapi-WebBrokerDelphi Internet WebSnapDelphi Internet WinsockDelphi JobsDelphi Language BASMDelphi Language ObjectPascalDelphi Model Driven Architecture (General)Delphi Model Driven Architecture (Third Party)Delphi MultimediaDelphi Native APIDelphi Non-TechnicalDelphi ObjectPascalDelphi OLE AutomationDelphi OO designDelphi OpenToolsAPIDelphi Reporting-ChartingDelphi RTLDelphi StudentsDelphi TeamSourceDelphi Thirdparty ToolsDelphi Thirdparty Tools (General)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (IntraWeb)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (RaveReports)Delphi UpgradeDelphi VCLDelphi VCL ComponentsDelphi VCL Components UsingDelphi VCL Components WritingDelphi WebServices SOAPDelphi WinAPIDelphi XMLDelphi Installationcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.misccomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.usagecomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.writingcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.databasescomp.lang.pascal.delphi.misccomp.sources.delphi JBuilder Newsgroups----------------JBuilderJBuilder AnnouncementsJBuilder Applet IssuesJBuilder As400JBuilder CompilerJBuilder CORBA/RMIJBuilder DatabasesJBuilder DB SwingJBuilder DebuggerJBuilder DeploymentJBuilder DocumentationJBuilder EnterpriseJBuilder HandheldJBuilder IDEJBuilder JavaJBuilder JavaAPIJBuilder Java LanguageJBuilder Java SwingJBuilder Java BeansJBuilder Java Beans UsageJBuilder Java Beans DevelopmentJBuilder JBCLJBuilder JDataStoreJBuilder JobsJBuilder LinuxJBuilder MacintoshJBuilder & MobileSetJBuilder MultiLingual AppsJBuilder Non-TechnicalJBuilder OpenToolsJBuilder Servlets (JSP)JBuilder StudentsJBuilder Team DevelopmentJBuilder Thirdparty ToolsJBuilder UpgradeJBuilder Installation InterBase Newsgroups----------------InterBaseInterBase Bug DiscussionInterBase GeneralInterBase IBConsoleInterBase OpenSourceInterBase ReplicationInterBase SQLInterBase ThirdpartyInterBase Installation Miscellaneous Borland Newsgroups----------------AppCenterAppServerEnteraVisiBroker  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.