[Bug c/111808] [C23] constexpr with excess precision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111808 Laurent Rineau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale

[Bug c++/96862] -frounding-math -std=c++2a error: '(1.29e+2 * 6.9314718055994529e-1)' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862 --- Comment #4 from Laurent Rineau --- At the compiler level, I do not think the bug is related to `-std=c++2a`. That flags was there only to trigger the bug from the recent versions of libstdc++ since: commit

[Bug libstdc++/96862] New: -frounding-math -std=c++2a error: '(1.29e+2 * 6.9314718055994529e-1)' is not a constant expression

: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org Target Milestone: --- Commit e6c76f0d3327bf00c96f5a63961c1d5ab77512db introduced a compilation error

[Bug c++/94141] c++20 rewritten operator== recursive call mixing friend and external operators for template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94141 --- Comment #4 from Laurent Rineau --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3) > It seems that this is as currently specified in C++20, but that some people > are going to try and change the rules to avoid breaking code like this. Do you

[Bug c++/66944] ICE on static thread_local member in class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944 --- Comment #9 from Laurent Rineau --- I still get the compilation error with gcc version 9.1.1.

[Bug c++/66944] ICE on static thread_local member in class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944 Laurent Rineau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale

[Bug c++/77948] Option processing of -std=c++11 -std=gnu++11 doesn't reset ext_numeric_literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77948 Laurent Rineau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale

[Bug driver/78146] "-std=c++11 -std=gnu++11" is different from "-std=gnu++11" alone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78146 Laurent Rineau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/78146] "-std=c++11 -std=gnu++11" is different from "-std=gnu++11" alone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78146 Laurent Rineau changed: What|Removed |Added Component|other |driver --- Comment #1 from Laurent

[Bug other/78146] New: "-std=c++11 -std=gnu++11" is different from "-std=gnu++11" alone

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org Target Milestone: --- Let say I have this file with one line: auto v = 1.Q; That file does compile with `g++ -std

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 Laurent Rineau Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #7 from Laurent Rineau Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org --- In the test case, nfds cannot overflow, because of two reasons: - nfds is only incremented from 0, and -fstrict-overflow allows gcc to suppose it will not overflow