https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #9 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Then we could optimized it in match.pd
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 036f92fa959..8944312c153 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -3711,6 +3711,17 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99910
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
It looks like commit 41019bfae2673a818 / r11-8011 "libstdc++: Clarify
static_assert message" accidentally swept this under the carpet.
If I cut off the last word, " type", i.e. the second changed line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
distribute_notes says
Any clobbers from i2 or i1 can only exist if they were added by
recog_for_combine.
which is not true apparently. But all of this code *does* depend
on that, it just doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99951
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
Can we report error in verify_ssa() when a non-default SSA's defining statement
has NULL bb, which is always a case that the statement is removed somewhere?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99966
Bug ID: 99966
Summary: Bounds check not eliminated by assert
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99806
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
A test that should be accepted:
// PR c++/99806
struct S {
template
void f(T) noexcept(B);
static constexpr bool B = true;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 4.7.0, 4.8.4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #1)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0)
> > bionic simply does not provide crti.o and crtn.o
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99962
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52625
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41723
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] Error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41723
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5ed6d8c90a4bf8e677a3ff9bd79d83636ccff9
commit r11-8035-gfb5ed6d8c90a4bf8e677a3ff9bd79d83636ccff9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52625
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b40d45cb1930e9aa8a1f9a6a8728fd47ebeeaaac
commit r11-8034-gb40d45cb1930e9aa8a1f9a6a8728fd47ebeeaaac
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99806
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99960
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Looks like both loads and stores are wrong in V2DImode:
typedef long long __attribute((vector_size(16))) v2di;
v2di load(v2di *p) { return *p; }
void store(v2di *p, v2di v) { *p = v; }
gives:
load:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Juan Lucas Rey from comment #7)
> the thing is removing the vector m_vPointers makes it work.
Just by accident.
> also this code works fine on clang.. why would it be misaligned?
Because pBuf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99536
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The IL I posted in comment #6 was before the libstdc++ change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99536
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
--- Comment #7 from Juan Lucas Rey ---
the thing is removing the vector m_vPointers makes it work. also this code
works fine on clang.. why would it be misaligned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
--- Comment #6 from Juan Lucas Rey ---
I get the following with -fsanitize=alignment
bug.cpp:29:21: runtime error: store to misaligned address 0x02249044 for
type 'char *', which requires 8 byte alignment
0x02249044: note: pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
--- Comment #4 from Juan Lucas Rey ---
I get the error "cannot find -lubsan" with -fsanitize=alignment
g++ bug.cpp -o bug -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize -fvect-cost-model && ./bug
this also reproduces the segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41723
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #1)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0)
> > > bionic simply does not provide crti.o and crtn.o
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #1)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0)
> > bionic simply does not provide crti.o and crtn.o
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
--- Comment #1 from Juan Lucas Rey ---
g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 7.3.1 20180303 (Red Hat 7.3.1-5)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #1)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0)
> > bionic simply does not provide crti.o and crtn.o
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965
Bug ID: 99965
Summary: segfault only happening with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93181
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wuninitialized fails to|[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
Bug ID: 99964
Summary: android(bionic) cannot find crti.o and crtn.o
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99963
Bug ID: 99963
Summary: [concepts] template vs concept auto reports
ambiguous overload
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99958
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems to work:
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/pstl/glue_algorithm_defs.h
b/libstdc++-v3/include/pstl/glue_algorithm_defs.h
index 48bc56ae401..cef78e22e31 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99962
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
i manually replace the macros with code and it worrks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99962
Bug ID: 99962
Summary: Error: unknown mnemonic `type' -- `type(_init)' for
crti.s, targetting aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99958
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 92722, which changed state.
Bug 92722 Summary: gcc considers "padding" byte of empty lambda to be
uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92722
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 92722, which changed state.
Bug 92722 Summary: gcc considers "padding" byte of empty lambda to be
uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92722
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92722
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99961
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52625
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92918
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92918
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a528594cf9a74e5a0fbac13ef673064ed73e1b89
commit r11-8033-ga528594cf9a74e5a0fbac13ef673064ed73e1b89
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Usually I'm trying to do binary search in these cases, build one tree with the
bad compiler, one with good one, cp -al one of the trees to a new dir, make a
list of the object files, start with half/half,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90994
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, combine just drops that clobber of flags, that was a thinko :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99873
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Swapping out those two .o files (individually and together) didn't yield a
successful build. I brought in the 8.4.0 .o files in one at a time and
eventually I got a successful build but at that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > Ah, create_log_links wants to work like that.
> > So, the bug seems to be that insn 108 has REG_DEAD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Ah, create_log_links wants to work like that.
> So, the bug seems to be that insn 108 has REG_DEAD (reg:CC 17 flags) note.
> It doesn't initially, but it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99961
Bug ID: 99961
Summary: requires clause rejects mentioning of function
parameters too early
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99955
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think may_alias ought to work together with vector_size, whatever its
position in the attribute list, i.e. there is a front-end bug here for
which making that combination of attributes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 50524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50524=edit
WIP Fix
This patch uses IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR to get the narrowing error, but more and
more changes are being necessary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I've posted a series of two patches that will improve things for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/567743.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/567731.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> For the global vars (so PR80039 too), can the problem be anything but when
> cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is called on such an object (or part
> thereof)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That patch is no good. The combination is not allowed because it is not
known what the "use"s are *for*. Checking if something is from the constant
pools is not enough at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937
--- Comment #4 from mike.robins at talktalk dot net ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to mike.robins from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > You need to adjust RTX costing accordingly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99950
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression]|[9/10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99960
Bug ID: 99960
Summary: MVE: Wrong code storing V2DI vector
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99805
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e06d3f5dd7d0c6b4a20fe813e6ee5addd097f560
commit r11-8031-ge06d3f5dd7d0c6b4a20fe813e6ee5addd097f560
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99844
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
We also ICE on
template
struct S {
void fn() noexcept(B);
};
void fn ()
{
S s;
s.fn();
}
so this needs to be fixed more generally than just in explicit().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wuninitialized for |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Notes on "restrict":
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/restrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959
Bug ID: 99959
Summary: missing -Wuninitialized for an esra variable with
TREE_NO_WARNING
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f3d9104610cb2058cf091707a20c1c6eff8d470
commit r11-8030-g2f3d9104610cb2058cf091707a20c1c6eff8d470
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99873
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c5b31975e62b4c52d76dc5efd9dc717a361c710
commit r11-8029-g5c5b31975e62b4c52d76dc5efd9dc717a361c710
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99958
Bug ID: 99958
Summary: The seems to contain the entire
and in C++20 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> And in #c9 you're right that it could be embedded in CONSTRUCTORs too.
Wonder if cp_walk_tree to find the ADDR_EXPR of heap var addresses and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b51321bc5193b65b308a26663fc02f786ba6cc89
commit r11-8028-gb51321bc5193b65b308a26663fc02f786ba6cc89
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And in #c9 you're right that it could be embedded in CONSTRUCTORs too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the global vars (so PR80039 too), can the problem be anything but when
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is called on such an object (or part thereof)?
Unfortunately, ctx->object might be NULL, perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2021-03-19 18:36:49.165304923 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2021-04-07 15:33:31.993242067 +0200
@@ -1616,6 +1616,22 @@ cxx_bind_parameters_in_call (const const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Sth as simple (and brute-force) as the following fixes this. Somehow SCEV
must already know the "point of failure" though and eventually always
instantiating from loop to loop_nest in steps might be more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> The argument is a pointer.
> Now, I bet a pointer to an automatic variable will be seen as non-constant
> and so in that case we might be ok.
> If the argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957
Bug ID: 99957
Summary: Ill-formed std::pair construction supported
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c01ae2ab6b227e21835d128c90e974dce4604be9
commit r11-8027-gc01ae2ab6b227e21835d128c90e974dce4604be9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50523=edit
DSE patch
For reference this is the patch adding an additional DSE pass which fails the
existing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why does it work for:
constexpr int foo(int* x) { return ++*x; }
struct S { constexpr S() : a(0) { foo(); foo(); } int a; };
constexpr S s;
static_assert (s.a == 2);
though? The argument to foo after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
Bug ID: 99956
Summary: loop interchange fails when altering bwaves inner loop
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
constexpr void foo(int* x) { ++*x; }
constexpr int bar() {
int* x = new int(0);
foo(x);
foo(x);
int y = *x;
delete x;
return y;
}
static_assert(bar() == 2);
We reject the above testcase for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The argument is a pointer.
Now, I bet a pointer to an automatic variable will be seen as non-constant and
so in that case we might be ok.
If the argument is a pointer to some global constexpr variable,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So, on the #c3 testcase, if I put a breakpoint before and after
> fold_nondependent_expr in finish_static_assert and temporarily in between
> those two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99940
--- Comment #2 from timburk at live dot co.uk ---
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
gcc is already the newest version (4:6.3.0-4).
gcc set to manually installed.
0 upgraded, 0 newly
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
