[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2020-12-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2020-12-02 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba3d8dffcc1c23b30370ab24fc20d09cff005d7b commit r11-5685-gba3d8dffcc1c23b30370ab24fc20d09cff005d7b Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2020-02-13 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- This is https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/167 In CWG today we decided that since this is all compiler magic anyway, we can be a bit more magical to get around this problematic interaction with

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2020-02-13 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Jason, do you think the current spec is clear enough on when the consteval evaluation of default arguments ought to happen (and does our implementation match that), or does it need clarification?

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2020-02-13 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2020-01-02 Thread phdofthehouse at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 --- Comment #4 from JeanHeyd Meneide --- I changed the library test cases, but maybe there needs to be something that helps the library developers tag a constant evaluation function as something that should be ran later / deferred. I don't have

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2019-12-31 Thread phdofthehouse at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 --- Comment #3 from JeanHeyd Meneide --- I guess we just throw out a handful of those test cases, then. It's not like the Standard is really impactful here, since most of Source Location's specification is "should...", which is encouragement and

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2019-12-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- What this boils down to is e.g. whether consteval int foo (int i) { if (i) throw 1; return 0; } void bar (int x = foo (0)); void baz (int x = foo (1)); void qux () { bar (0); bar (); baz (0); } needs to be

[Bug c++/93093] __builtin_source_location reports values for default arguments not aligned with the Standard

2019-12-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,