https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 24 17:59:58 2016
New Revision: 234463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234463=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/70323
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One part fixed, the -Wall part still broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:45:26 2016
New Revision: 234438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234438=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/70323
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression): Diagnose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> I see the problem: It's -Wall that suppresses the error.
Yeah, seems with -Wall ctx->quiet is true (probably desirable, for some kind of
warning we don't want to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I see the problem: It's -Wall that suppresses the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 38054 [details]
Hmm. Something else must be going on. I've applied your patch on powerpc64le
but it hasn't changed anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
That's odd. I do have local changes in my tree but I verified it on three
other machines. I've retested with today's pristine top of trunk on
powerpc64le, still with no errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38054=edit
gcc6-pr70323.patch
This seems like it would work, but haven't bootstrapped/regtested it yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the missing first error, the function is cp_folded into
return = i == 0 ? -2147483648(OVF) : 2147483647;
Thus, I wonder if VERIFY_CONSTANT or something similar shouldn't be done either
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm still getting the second error even with latest trunk, so can only
partially reproduce it:
pr70323.C:7:37: in constexpr expansion of ‘overflow_if_1(1)’
pr70323.C:7:39: error: overflow in constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
15 matches
Mail list logo
