https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87904
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Nov 7 16:28:46 2018
New Revision: 265879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265879=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR C++/87904] lookup ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87904
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2018-11-06
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed r87462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87462
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Nov 14 19:30:47 2018
New Revision: 266158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266158=gcc=rev
Log:
[debug/88006] -fdebug-types-section gives undefined ref
||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed r266158
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88006
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Nov 14 19:30:47 2018
New Revision: 266158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266158=gcc=rev
Log:
[debug/88006] -fdebug-types-section gives undefined ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Hm, while I understand the intent here, I wonder if clang is succeeding by
accident? The std is not completely clear whether all anonymous namespaces may
share the same unique identifier or not. We do,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85070
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
|| errorcount sounds completely plausible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84707
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87269
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Nov 16 15:01:55 2018
New Revision: 266210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266210=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87269] Mark string operator overload in template defn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87269
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
That change looks suspicious in its own right -- it ends up mutating the
initializer during the adding of overload candidates.
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45440
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45440=edit
testcase
We reject default member list initializers when the member has an expli
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:56:58 2019
New Revision: 268016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268016=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/86610] lambda captures in templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Jan 17 12:58:50 2019
New Revision: 268029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268029=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/86610] lambda captures in templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed gcc-8 r268029
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 13 15:57:24 2018
New Revision: 267096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267096=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] Fix second bug
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45287
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45287=edit
testcase
g++ -std=c++17 fails to compile this with:
nathan@morden:80>g++ -std=c++17 b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 13 17:47:52 2018
New Revision: 267099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267099=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] Fix second bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 45169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45169=edit
non operator= version
This turns out to be an orthogonal regression as shown by the new testcase. We
fail to notice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Nov 29 12:50:45 2018
New Revision: 266614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266614=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] operator= lookup in templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87926
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Marxin, the underlying problem is still there, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87926
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Nov 20 15:54:12 2018
New Revision: 266319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266319=gcc=rev
Log:
PR 87926
* Makefile.in (bitmap.o-warn): Use
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 45102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45102=edit
simpler example of original failure, other failure modes added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Nov 28 21:25:06 2018
New Revision: 266590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266590=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] operator= lookup in templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
There's STRIP_NOPS, isn't there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 2 15:23:56 2019
New Revision: 267516
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267516=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/
* cxx-mapper.cc (server): Workaround PR c++/88664.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45316
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45316=edit
extracted from code using epoll_event structure
nathans@devvm2452:29>./cc1plus -Wa
: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44691
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44691=edit
testcase
./cc1plus -fpreprocessed bug.ii -flto -ffat-lto-objects -fdebug-ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Oh, forgot to mention, trunk and gcc-8 (at least)
||2018-09-13
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2018-09-17
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
No lambda's required. Just the outer one must have some kind of class type:
struct Proxy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Thanks Christophe, I noticed that when checking the 8 backport and committed a
fix, so updating should make it work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Sep 18 13:52:30 2018
New Revision: 264391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264391=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH c++/86881] -Wshadow-local-compatible ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Sep 18 15:06:35 2018
New Revision: 264396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264396=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH c++/86881] -Wshadow-local-compatible ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88995
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
template struct dn
{
static void execute (long *ary)
{
constexpr int index = 0;
[&] { auto = ary [index]; };
}
};
void foo ()
{
dn::execute;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88995
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
bitmap_element is marked as a doubly linked list.
struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next"), chain_prev ("%h.prev"))) bitmap_element {
That is untrue f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89150
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I didn't know there were no tree-form bitmaps yet.
Contrary to my original assertion, I think just dropping the chain_prev
("%h.prev") marker will suffice. Normal use of a list-form bitmap starts at
the
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 46360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46360=edit
testcase
The attached code ICEs
./cc1plus repro.ii -fpreprocessed -g2 -O3 -std=gnu++17
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
digging into the C++ FE's grokdeclarator shows this to be trickier than C. C
has a global variable of the expression component currently being built. it
hooks a COMPOUND_EXPR into there, in its own
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90494
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
if GCC rejects such arrays of trailing-array structs, and my assumption that
glibc is in C, I don't think it can be using them.
IMHO they don't make sense and a compile time error would be good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70196
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
ordering comparison of pointers is only well-defined when the two pointers
point into the same object (including one-past-the-end). [expr.ref]/4
No object can have a NULL address.
The third bullet permits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Jun 17 13:46:59 2019
New Revision: 272384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272384=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/90754] name lookup ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Igor, was this distilled from real code? what was the intent of such an
organization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #4 from Nathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think I'm going to have to consult core ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Thanks for the context. Clang intends to, but does not yet, implement DR2061.
which is why you're seeing the different behaviour there, at least.
Continuig discussion on the C++ Core list,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell ---
thanks for your input. Richard Smith (Clang maintainer) & I are going to take
this question to the evolution group. DR2061 is intended to fix a problem with
the original intent of inline namespaces.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I don't know where the DR information is available without a password (C++
physical meetings are public, see https://isocpp.org/std/
Here is the text of 2061:
2061. Inline namespace after simplifications
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jun 26 12:58:39 2019
New Revision: 272692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272692=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR preprocessor/90927] Fixe dependency output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Richard, I have no idea. AFAICT all the dump_tu stuff is in the C++ FE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90613, which changed state.
Bug 90613 Summary: [10 Regression] Debug info size increase after r271467
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90613
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90613
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Aug 28 13:36:54 2019
New Revision: 274991
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274991=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/90613] Fix using-decl debug bloat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90613
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91639
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91639
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Sep 5 11:23:48 2019
New Revision: 275402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275402=gcc=rev
Log:
[preprocessor/91639] #includes at EOF
||2019-09-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
to remind me, bullet 3 that Barry references is:
'if the name of the friend is a qualified-id and a matching function template
is found in the specified class or namespace, the friend declaration refers to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91125
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Sep 6 12:51:44 2019
New Revision: 275456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275456=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Deprecate -frepo option.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Add a warning to detect:
extern "C" {
#include "foo"
}
as that will cause problems with c++20 header-units & include translation.
Bonus points if the wa
||2019-09-14
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Related to glibc BZ 24998
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92370
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Nov 5 16:59:41 2019
New Revision: 277853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277853=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/92370] ICE with VC marker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92370
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
looks like a long standing bug, and probably already reported. But I ran into
it, it looks well formed [clang accepts it]
template class X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92636
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55809
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think it's ill-formed.
the parameter is a non-type template parameter, using a qualified-id containing
a dependent type. As such typename T::X * is correct. Using class there is
ill-formed.
typename
||2019-10-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91991
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Oct 4 19:08:09 2019
New Revision: 276596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276596=gcc=rev
Log:
[preprocessor/91991] column location overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91991
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93761
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93933
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plexando at protonmail dot com
---
||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
dup of 93933, but different testcase
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 93933 ***
||2020-02-25
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47912
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47912=edit
testcase
I fell over this on the modules bra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93933
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: preprocessor
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
-fdirectives-only doesn't grok raw string literals. I have a fix on the
modules branch, ready for when GCC 11 opens up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93452
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93452
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed master feaa1640b3543c7c3a1f3a788bc449a3638cb780, will backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93761
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
The modules branch identifies itself as:
gcc version 10.0.1 20200211 (experimental) [devel/c++-modules
fe76dae46c6:20200212-0942] (GCC)
I added the branch name to the [...] piece last week.
Its ICE and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93761
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
fwiw the stack traceback doesn't look like it's concept related, probably some
other bug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85515
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
601 - 700 of 1168 matches
Mail list logo
