https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92523
--- Comment #2 from Ryou Ezoe ---
That is regression.
The latest HEAD build of the Clang as of now indeed pass that code. But this is
explicitly ill-formed code. parentheses are required.
See 13.1, paragraph 9, Note.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The lambda expression's parameter-declaration don't assume a qualified-id to
name a type if that parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
--- Comment #2 from Ryou Ezoe ---
Yes. this is C++20 concepts .
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This code introduce regression after GCC 4.9 and onward.
#include
template < typename T >
struct index { }
int main() { }
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Following code has unsatisfied constraint with error messages
prog.cc:15:25: error: could
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This code produced ICE on GCC 10 2019-11-12.
template < typename T >
requires requires
{
// ICE
[]{ T:
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Following code produce unhelpful error messages:
constexpr bool f() { return true ; }
template < typename T >
requires f()
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Following code produce the ICE on GCC 9 and the GCC 10 latest HEAD:
template < typename T >
de
: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC does not accept a well-formed code of using declaration with pack
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC does not recognize [[deprecated]] attribute for namespace
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/LVpUyDhcI75rNozy
namespace [[deprecated]] ns
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
§7.1.7.4.1 paragraph 5 said.
>If the placeholder is the decltype(auto) type-specifier, T shall be the
>placeholder alone.
Following code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78929
--- Comment #2 from Ryou Ezoe ---
My bad.
§1.10 p18 still said "i++ + i" is undefined.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC 7 claims to support Refining Expression Evaluation Order for Idiomatic C++,
proposed by P0145R3.
https://gcc.gnu.org
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
GCC failed at virtual function with override
trailing return type name, followed by override virt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59246
--- Comment #3 from Ryou Ezoe boostcpp at gmail dot com ---
Sorry.
I should have provide a complete source code.
I thought it's more helpful to issue runtime abort even though the standard
doesn't requires it.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: boostcpp at gmail dot com
Consider the following code:
struct Base
{
virtual void f() = 0 ;
virtual ~Base() ;
} ;
// pure virtual function with definition
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59246
--- Comment #1 from Ryou Ezoe boostcpp at gmail dot com ---
According to the de facto standard C++ ABI:
http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#pure-virtual
__cxa_pure_virtual will be called:
if the user calls a non-overridden pure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48884
Summary: decltype's operand doesn't consider friend declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48871
Summary: gcc doesn't accept null pointer value as a template
non-type argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48582
Summary: Template non-type arguments doesn't accept null
pointer constant value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48296
Summary: constexpr member function cannot use the class type it
belongs as parameter type or return type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47956
Summary: gcc accepts static data member declaration with
initializer for non-const literal type if
type-specifier is auto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47957
Summary: Type mismatch when a class derived a same name with
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47210
Summary: Compile error on type specifier in a friend declaration
designates a class type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47210
--- Comment #2 from Ryou Ezoe boostcpp at gmail dot com 2011-01-07 14:02:43
UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45755
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45625
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45539
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45225
--- Comment #1 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-08-07 12:18 ---
I also noticed gcc accept this code.
Should I create separate bug report?
template typename ... Types
class Foo { };
// Params is template parameter.
template typename ... Types, typename Params
class Foo typename
--- Comment #2 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-08-07 12:18 ---
My bad. Never mind.
(In reply to comment #1)
I also noticed gcc accept this code.
Should I create separate bug report?
template typename ... Types
class Foo { };
// Params is template parameter.
template
--- Comment #3 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-08-07 12:25 ---
Come to think of it, It just use primary template.
If I don't write the difinition of primary template, gcc issues error.
template typename ... Types
class Foo ;
But still, I think this template keyword usage
--- Comment #4 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-08-07 14:17 ---
It doesn't compile the following code which I think well-formed.
#include tuple
template typename ... Types
class Foo ;
template
template typename ... class ... Types,
typename ... Params
class Foo
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44703
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43397
--- Comment #4 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-11 12:26 ---
It looks like gcc is correct.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315
--- Comment #3 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 22:30 ---
I'm not sure about this.
Maybe gcc is right.
Even though it take zero parameter, it's still there.
I don't know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315
--- Comment #1 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 00:08 ---
Umm, I found that non-variadic template is more specialized than the variadic
templates.
I wonder it affects this.
However, in this case, I think there is no type to be specialized.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: boostcpp at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43261
--- Comment #3 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-05 00:55 ---
Thank you. Now I understand the real problem.
But still, it's nasty.
I wonder C++0x fix this issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43261
41 matches
Mail list logo
