[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.4 Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to work||10.3.1, 11.1.1, 12.0 Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.1.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Fixed I guess.
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b98b55e0e8b4051f4e3b0afc76b506b01f0889f commit r10-9926-g4b98b55e0e8b4051f4e3b0afc76b506b01f0889f Author: Jason Merrill Date: Fri Jun 11 16:55:30 2021 -0400 c++: constexpr and array[0] [PR101029] build_vec_init_elt exits early if we're initializing a zero-element array, so build_vec_init needs to do the same to avoid trying to instantiate things after we've already started throwing important bits away. PR c++/101029 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * init.c (build_vec_init): Shortcut [0] case. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/ext/array4.C: New test.
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da25516718cb150cc938f5947650c9ab486505c6 commit r11-8586-gda25516718cb150cc938f5947650c9ab486505c6 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Jun 16 17:42:15 2021 -0400 c++: Tweak PR101029 fix The case of an initializer with side effects for a zero-length array seems extremely unlikely, but we should still return the right type in that case. PR c++/101029 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * init.c (build_vec_init): Preserve the type of base.
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff4deb4b1d0c5947669ddc76fde4db83e28009d8 commit r12-1548-gff4deb4b1d0c5947669ddc76fde4db83e28009d8 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Jun 16 17:42:15 2021 -0400 c++: Tweak PR101029 fix The case of an initializer with side effects for a zero-length array seems extremely unlikely, but we should still return the right type in that case. PR c++/101029 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * init.c (build_vec_init): Preserve the type of base.
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d92613ec5529cecd66ef0c21b894c7f70ace7f87 commit r11-8582-gd92613ec5529cecd66ef0c21b894c7f70ace7f87 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Fri Jun 11 16:55:30 2021 -0400 c++: constexpr and array[0] [PR101029] build_vec_init_elt exits early if we're initializing a zero-element array, so build_vec_init needs to do the same to avoid trying to instantiate things after we've already started throwing important bits away. PR c++/101029 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * init.c (build_vec_init): Shortcut [0] case. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/ext/array4.C: New test.
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's only fixed on trunk so far, which will become the 12.1 release in 10-11 months. It's a regression, so either the compiler fix should get backported to the release branches (including the gcc-10 branch) or the static_assert in the standard library header should get removed. https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #7 from Jim Walker --- Thanks for the fast work on this issue. How does it work for gcc bugs in terms of getting into a release? Would there be a 10.x release that includes this?
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08e1ff9d6e5a419d5b4a60c077df549e81601d9b commit r12-1404-g08e1ff9d6e5a419d5b4a60c077df549e81601d9b Author: Jason Merrill Date: Fri Jun 11 16:55:30 2021 -0400 c++: constexpr and array[0] [PR101029] build_vec_init_elt exits early if we're initializing a zero-element array, so build_vec_init needs to do the same to avoid trying to instantiate things after we've already started throwing important bits away. PR c++/101029 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * init.c (build_vec_init): Shortcut [0] case. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/ext/array4.C: New test.
[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Summary|unexpected error: |[10/11/12 regression] |non-constant condition for |unexpected error: |static assertion in gcc |non-constant condition for |10/11, but not 9 (clang |static assertion in gcc |also fine) |10/11, but not 9 (clang ||also fine)
