[Bug c++/58590] New: [C++11] Hidden typename not ill-formed under SFINAE conditions

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com gcc 4.9.0 20130922 (experimental) compiled with the flags -std=c++11 -Wall -pedantic-errors rejects the following code: //- struct

[Bug c++/58590] [C++11] Hidden typename not ill-formed under SFINAE conditions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1) Not having investigated this issue at all, I doubt that it should be considered a SFINAE proper issue, Well, the actual

[Bug c++/58590] [C++11] Hidden typename not ill-formed under SFINAE conditions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3) I still believe this isn't a SFINAE proper issue. Could you please elaborate why? Also note that in the original testcase

[Bug c++/58590] [C++11] Hidden typename not ill-formed under SFINAE conditions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5) Because a SFINAE proper error is when you have an hard error, essentially by definition from the implementation point

[Bug c++/58536] [c++1y] ICE with auto in constructor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58536 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58548] [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE with local struct in function with auto parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58548 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58549] [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE with local function in function with auto parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58549 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58561] [c++11] ICE using declaration of function with auto in return type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58561 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58407] [C++11] Should warn about deprecated implicit generation of copy constructor/assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8) About the duplication, you may want to review what Francois posted to the mailing list a few days ago and send your comments

[Bug c++/58352] infinite template instantiation depth errors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58352 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58352] infinite template instantiation depth errors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58352 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to 1zeeky from comment #2) I am aware that the code is invalid; I'm not saying there shouldn't be an error. Then I was mislead by your comment: I'm not 100

[Bug c++/58352] infinite template instantiation depth errors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58352 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- Maybe related to bug 16564?

[Bug c++/58353] Internal Compiler Error with Variadic Templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58353 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/58338] Add noexcept to functions with a narrow contract

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/58265] std::string move assignment should be noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58265 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/53025] [C++11] noexcept operator depends on copy-elision

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- This is just a polite reminder for some response. I'm especially interested to hear whether there exist any reasonable doubts on the validity of the arguments brought

[Bug c++/58191] Can't use boost transform_iterator with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- First, this issue should be categorized as belonging to the component libstdc++, not to c++. Second, the defect report is invalid, because std::upper_bound requires

[Bug c++/58191] Can't use boost transform_iterator with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2) Francois, did we change anything in the library for 4.8.x? I think that Francois added more iterator concept checking

[Bug c++/58184] Pointer to overloaded function is non-deduced context

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58184 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58181] A bug in lambda expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58181 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- My understanding is that the presented program has undefined behaviour and that its assertion may fail or may not. The reason being that the outer lambda expression has

[Bug c++/58083] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with lambda as default parameter of a template function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58074] New: [C++11] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com The following observations where originally found by testing the std::is_trivial trait from type_traits, but the actual problem

[Bug c++/58046] template operator= in SFINAE class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58046 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58062] [C++11] bogus __func__ lookup in lambda body

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58062 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58063] default arguments evaluated twice per call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/58063] default arguments evaluated twice per call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2) I suppose a minimal reproducer could involve a file scope static of some sort... I'm a bit confused by your reply, Paolo

[Bug c++/58063] default arguments evaluated twice per call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5) Ah, in case isn't obvious already: it only happens when the I/O expression has the ! operator in front. I suspected

[Bug c++/58063] default arguments evaluated twice per call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7) But it happens with -O0 too, right? Yes. In any case we badly need a reduced testcase ;) I agree. Unfortunately I'm

[Bug c++/58040] Cannot take address-of public using-declaration of member from protected base class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57888] using non-type template parameter in constexpr function for non static data member intializer segfaults

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57888 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57892] g++ internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9122 while attempting to brace-initialize a dynamically allocated array class member

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57892 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57869] New: [C++11] Casting a object pointer to a function pointer should not warn about a forbidden conversion

Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com gcc 4.9.0 20130616 (experimental) diagnoses a warning for the following code compiled with the flags: -Wall

[Bug libstdc++/49022] [C++0x][DR 2058] std::begin and std::end specialized for std::valarray with some operators are missing.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022 --- Comment #28 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #27) Yes.

[Bug c++/57825] Template specialization for ref qualified member pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57825 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57825] Template specialization for ref qualified member pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57825 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #2) Propably this is also causing the problem with the standard library is_function and is_member function traits, because

[Bug c++/57825] Template specialization for ref qualified member pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57825 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3) Daniel, which library testcases did we commit?!? ;) Crazy. During an intermediate state we had bug 57388 which prevented

[Bug c++/57775] default argument for template parameter error for friend definition in template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57775 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57793] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with bitfields in get_bit_range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57793 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57746] rejected valid specialization of member function of class template (I think)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #4) Daniel, I'm unconvinced that your interpretation is the intended one. Well, [temp.spec] p5 says more strongly

[Bug c++/57764] class static constexpr variables cannot be references

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57764 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57746] rejected valid specialization of member function of class template (I think)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) It does for G++, it's been accepted as an extension in C++03 mode for years. What I actually meant to say with my comment

[Bug c++/57746] rejected valid specialization of member function of class template (I think)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57632] Operator new overloads with stdc++11 enabled looses exception specifier (MacOsX)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57632 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57614] Friend declaration and qualified class member access

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57614 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57626] [C++11] ICE with template alias and member function pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57626 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57599] result of dynamic_castcv T is just T

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57599 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) Although shouldn't it fail to compile, due to private destructor and copy constructor? I agree, it should fail

[Bug c++/57595] [C++11] Destructor defaulted on first declaration is treated as public

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57595 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57575] lvalue function accepted as an rvalue

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57575 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57570] Deduction succeeds despite type mismatch of non-type template parameter and deduced argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57570 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57543] decltype needs explicit 'this' pointer in member function declaration of template class with trailing return type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57527] [C++11] Nested variadic templates cause internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57527 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57502] Expected error Declaration doesn't declare anything, but code compiles fine for user-defined class with using decltype, but not with built-in types.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57502 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57504] invalid this pointer passed in call to virtual function that returns a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57504 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/57505] [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57505 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- This is fixed in gcc 4.9 trunk and I believe it has already been fixed in gcc 4.8 due to bug #50043.

[Bug c++/57484] 'std::numeric_limits T ::signaling_NaN()' signaling-bit is incorrect for x86 32-bit.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57484 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Charles L. Wilcox from comment #3) Signaling NaN for type f in hex is 7fe0. I agree, this one doesn't look right to me, because that looks indeed like

[Bug c++/57480] struct with a va_list considered as non-POD

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57480 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57480] struct with a va_list considered as non-POD

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57480 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) My interprettaion is that the standard does not say anything about that (I think I had once a similar question in regard

[Bug c++/57484] 'std::numeric_limits T ::signaling_NaN()' signaling-bit is incorrect for x86 32-bit.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57484 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- I haven't checked your bit arithmetics, but I have checked the full bit patterns of the resulting NaNs in hex on my mingw-64 bit system. What I'm getting

[Bug c++/57466] Argument deduction fails for 'const T*' when T is function type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57460] New: [C++11] Sfinae doesn't respect dependent context

: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com gcc 4.9.0 20130519 (experimental) compiled with the flags -std=c++11 -Wall -pedantic-errors rejects the following code: // int get_int(); #define

[Bug c++/57437] C++11: mutable lambdas; gcc 4.7-4.8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57437 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57444] ICE in instantiate_type for invalid use of member with using-declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57444 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/47765] Wrong template deduction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47765 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7) Do we have a DR # for this issue? It seems to me that this is http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html

[Bug c++/57388] [C++11] ICE when function types with ref-qualifiers meet other function types

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57388 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- Extending std::is_function in regard to ref-qualified functions will depend on that issue. I haven't found a way to get around these ICEs in the (updated) test cases.

[Bug c++/52216] [C++11] Wrong exception deduction for some forms of placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52216 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3) It seems that this is CWG 1465 and it will be resolved by http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1351

[Bug c++/52216] [C++11] Wrong exception deduction for some forms of placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52216 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5) It would be great to have these test cases added.

[Bug c++/57408] lambda, Variable length arrays, thread, internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9327

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57408 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57408] lambda, Variable length arrays, thread, internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9327

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57408 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- Further simplification down to a library-free test case: //-- templatetypename Callable struct Impl

[Bug c++/57416] internal compiler error: in gimple_expand_cfg, at cfgexpand.c:4575

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57416 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57416] internal compiler error: in gimple_expand_cfg, at cfgexpand.c:4575

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57416 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- If you remove the still existing member initializer in func1, does the ICE still exist? (On 4.9 after removal of that initializer I could compile and run the program

[Bug c++/57416] internal compiler error: in gimple_expand_cfg, at cfgexpand.c:4575

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57416 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4) We had a clash here, but except for my first observation the remaining questions are still relevant.

[Bug c++/56991] constexpr std::initializer_list rejects too complex initialization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56991 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Matheus Izvekov from comment #2) I get also a similar bug: #include initializer_list //is accepted by gcc constexpr std::initializer_listint good1

[Bug c++/57392] The result of a .* expression is rvalue in a function template when its object expression is lvalue.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57392 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57397] Off-by-one error in diagnostic when calling variadic function template with too few arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/57403] A vector of volatile int doesn't work, but one of volatile void * does

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57406] New: [C++11] function templates don't accept function types with ref-qualifiers as template arguments

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com When attempting to update the library test cases that use the test_category template I stumbled across compiler error

[Bug c++/57406] [C++11] function templates don't accept function types with ref-qualifiers as template arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57406 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/57388] New: [C++11] ICE when function types with ref-qualifiers meet other function types

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com While attempting to upgrade std::function for functions with ref-qualifiers I found that the following code gives an ICE for gcc 4.9.0

[Bug c++/57384] can't expand a parameter pack into a list of function types or function pointer types

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57384 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- I have the impression that this *could* be related to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1488 This is unchecked yet, because I'm leaving my

[Bug c++/57388] [C++11] ICE when function types with ref-qualifiers meet other function types

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57388 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #0) While attempting to upgrade std::function for functions with ref-qualifiers [..] Oops, I meant std::is_function of-course.

[Bug c++/57248] string parameter to constexpr functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- The code looks valid to me. I think that Paolo just wanted to point out that the library implementation does not cause this. I agree with him and can confirm

[Bug c++/57335] internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_bit_field_ref, at cp/semantics.c:6977

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57314] default template arguments for member template functions of class templates are instantiated before allowed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57314 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/56976] using braces to initialize a reference forces copy construction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56976 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Akim Demaille from comment #2) You are right, I misread your code example in the haste. I agree that this is not related to CWG 1604 (we have no mixed case

[Bug libstdc++/57270] std::is_function ignores function ref-qualifiers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57270 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/57279] New: [C++11] alias declaration fails to declare function types with cv-qualifiers

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com The following code is rejected if compiled with gcc 4.9.0 20130505 (experimental) using the flags -std=c++11 -Wall -pedantic-errors

[Bug libstdc++/57250] [C++11] std::shared_ptr misses atomic_* support

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57250 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) Thanks for the pointer to the status page - sorry, I didn't check it before. For the future: Does it make sense to open

[Bug c++/57253] GCC ignores ref-qualifiers of pseudo-function types in explicit specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57253 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/57250] New: [C++11] std::shared_ptr misses atomic_* support

: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Consider this as a reminder bug entry to provide the atomic_* overloads for std::shared_ptr. A minimal test case could be: #include memory int main() { const std::shared_ptrint p

[Bug c++/57239] cannot handle inner/nested class templates with non-type parameter packs that were declared in the outer/containing class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/54320] [c++11] range access to VLA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320 --- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10) FWIW, I fully agree with Jason: VLAs are very restricted and don't even allow for forming references to them, so

[Bug libstdc++/57220] New: [mingw] Undefined reference to __mingw_strtod

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220 Bug #: 57220 Summary: [mingw] Undefined reference to __mingw_strtod Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/57220] [mingw] Undefined reference to __mingw_strtod

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords

[Bug libstdc++/57220] [mingw] Undefined reference to __mingw_strtod

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libstdc++/57220] [mingw] Undefined reference to __mingw_strtod

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2013-05-08 19:56:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) Thanks for the litmus test, Kay. The result output I'm getting is: MinGW-W64 Runtime 3.0 (alpha - rev. 0) -00-00

[Bug libstdc++/57220] [mingw] Undefined reference to __mingw_strtod

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2013-05-08 20:25:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) The attached '-v' '-save-temps' output indicates version 4.9.0 20130505 (experimental) (x86_64-w64-mingw32), but I'm

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >