[Bug c++/111636] Wreturn-type not triggered with exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111636 KL changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/111636] New: Wreturn-type not triggered with exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111636 Bug ID: 111636 Summary: Wreturn-type not triggered with exceptions Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/111091] Split view with double quoted string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111091 --- Comment #4 from KL --- I get it. Must be more careful :) Thanks

[Bug c++/111091] Split view with double quoted string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111091 --- Comment #1 from KL --- The godbolt has the clang compiler set but it was just to compare the output (which has the same output given the same libstdc++). Sorry for this.

[Bug c++/111091] New: Split view with double quoted string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111091 Bug ID: 111091 Summary: Split view with double quoted string Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/111004] New: Visitor and concept error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111004 Bug ID: 111004 Summary: Visitor and concept error message Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/110845] Function call when it should inline?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110845 --- Comment #4 from KL --- My mistake indeed, You are right everything is OK :+1

[Bug c++/110845] Function call when it should inline?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110845 --- Comment #2 from KL --- Changed main to foo: same behavior

[Bug c++/110845] New: Function call when it should inline?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110845 Bug ID: 110845 Summary: Function call when it should inline? Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/106175] std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106175 --- Comment #8 from KL --- Sending a message to the commitee is like sending a message to void. Issue resolved.

[Bug libstdc++/106175] std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106175 KL changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/106175] std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106175 KL changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/106175] std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106175 --- Comment #3 from KL --- Please note, that comparison should only occur when you use next, prev or advance. It is useless for normal operations using end() directly. So no cost here.

[Bug libstdc++/106175] std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106175 --- Comment #2 from KL --- During the parsing stage, the compiler has this information. It knows that we want the end of v. So it can inject a comparison into the resulting code. A segfault here is not acceptable for a language like C++.

[Bug libstdc++/106175] New: std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106175 Bug ID: 106175 Summary: std::prev and next should check for equality with std::begin Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/105767] gcc 12.1 ICE but not with 11.2 compiling boost

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105767 KL changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/105767] New: gcc 12.1 ICE but not with 11.2 compiling boost

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105767 Bug ID: 105767 Summary: gcc 12.1 ICE but not with 11.2 compiling boost Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/105515] New: const vector inside a module namespace. Error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105515 Bug ID: 105515 Summary: const vector inside a module namespace. Error. Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/105512] New: compilation with -fmodules-ts and std=c++20 leads to segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105512 Bug ID: 105512 Summary: compilation with -fmodules-ts and std=c++20 leads to segfault Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/105446] [modules] Partitions: Segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105446 KL changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/105446] [modules] Partitions: Segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105446 --- Comment #1 from KL --- gcc-12.1.0-RC-20220429

[Bug c++/105446] New: [modules] Partitions: Segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105446 Bug ID: 105446 Summary: [modules] Partitions: Segfault Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug analyzer/97110] [meta-bug] tracker bug for supporting C++ in -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97110 Bug 97110 depends on bug 101781, which changed state. Bug 101781 Summary: make_unique generating a warning with -fanalyzer https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101781 What|Removed |Added

[Bug analyzer/101781] make_unique generating a warning with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101781 KL changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/101780] Missing initializers whereas structure has default initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780 --- Comment #4 from KL --- I get it but, as is, with no more contextual information, it is an annoying warning. Not enough information for the developer is the real problem here.

[Bug c++/101780] Missing initializers whereas structure has default initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780 --- Comment #2 from KL --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) Thanks, I thought that this warning is fine if it helps to assure the developer that everything is still under control: that if the analyzer sees that a field is left

[Bug c++/101781] New: make_unique generating a warning with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101781 Bug ID: 101781 Summary: make_unique generating a warning with -fanalyzer Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/101780] New: Missing initializers whereas structure has default initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780 Bug ID: 101780 Summary: Missing initializers whereas structure has default initializers Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal