[Bug c++/77384] Assembler error - std::forward(decimal64) already defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Known to fail||4.5.3
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase that where the issue happens for both C++98 and C++11+:
```
#include
template int f(T1) {}
using std::decimal::decimal64;
int t = f(1.5dd);
int t1 = f(decimal64(1.5dd));
```
[Bug c++/77384] Assembler error - std::forward(decimal64) already defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77384 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||5.5.0 Known to work|5.5.0 | Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|Assembler error - |Assembler error - |std::forward(decimal64) |std::forward(decimal64) |already defined |already defined | --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > This only happens for C++11 and later. > > Modified testcase that's valid in C++98 too: Oh I missed that. GCC 6 changed the default :).
[Bug c++/77384] Assembler error - std::forward(decimal64) already defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77384
--- Comment #3 from danielberger at gmail dot com ---
looks like this is now an ICE on trunk:
> :9:63: error: Two symbols with same comdat_group are not linked by
> the same_comdat_group list.
> 9 | int main(void){return 0;/*stub provided by Compiler Explorer*/}
> | ^
> _ZSt7forwardIDdEOT_RNSt16remove_referenceIS0_E4typeE/765 (constexpr _Tp&&
> std::forward(typename remove_reference<_Tp>::type&) [with _Tp =
> decimal::decimal64]) @0x7fa30f39b000
> Type: function definition analyzed
> Visibility: semantic_interposition no_reorder public weak comdat
> comdat_group:_ZSt7forwardIDdEOT_RNSt16remove_referenceIS0_E4typeE one_only
> visibility_specified
> previous sharing asm name: 761
> References: __gxx_personality_v0/768 (addr)
> Referring:
> Function flags: body
> Called by: _ZNSt4pairIiDdEC2IiDdLb1EEEOT_OT0_/763
> Calls:
> _ZSt7forwardIDdEOT_RNSt16remove_referenceIS0_E4typeE/761 (constexpr _Tp&&
> std::forward(typename remove_reference<_Tp>::type&) [with _Tp =
> ]) @0x7fa30f087cc0
> Type: function definition analyzed
> Visibility: semantic_interposition no_reorder public weak comdat
> comdat_group:_ZSt7forwardIDdEOT_RNSt16remove_referenceIS0_E4typeE one_only
> visibility_specified
> next sharing asm name: 765
> References: __gxx_personality_v0/768 (addr)
> Referring:
> Function flags: body
> Called by: _ZNSt4pairIiDdEC1IiDdLb1EEEOT_OT0_/754
> Calls:
> :9:63: internal compiler error: symtab_node::verify failed
> 0x217c229 internal_error(char const*, ...)
> ???:0
> 0xbdf772 symtab_node::verify_symtab_nodes()
> ???:0
> 0xbfbcaf symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit()
> ???:0
> Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
> -freport-bug).
> Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
> See
[Bug c++/77384] Assembler error - std::forward(decimal64) already defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77384 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2019-01-07 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- This only happens for C++11 and later. Modified testcase that's valid in C++98 too: #include #include using std::decimal::decimal64; std::pair x( 1, 1.5dd ); std::pair u( 1, decimal64(1.5dd) ); tmp$ g++ d64.cc /tmp/cceiwvNA.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cceiwvNA.s:1386: Error: symbol `_ZNSt4pairIiDdEC1IiDdLb1EEEOT_OT0_' is already defined /tmp/cceiwvNA.s:1390: Error: symbol `_ZSt7forwardIDdEOT_RNSt16remove_referenceIS0_E4typeE' is already defined tmp$ g++ d64.cc -std=c++98 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/../../../../lib64/crt1.o: In function `_start': (.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
[Bug c++/77384] Assembler error - std::forward(decimal64) already defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77384 --- Comment #1 from danielberger at gmail dot com --- Anyone have a chance to take a look at this? It still reproduces in 8.2 and trunk. Any more information I can provide?
