Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kholdstare0.0 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Here is the a minimal test.cpp:
#include
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69302
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Created attachment 37363
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37363=edit
Preprocessed source that results in error
g++ -std=c++1y -c -Werror -Wall -Wextra preprocessed.cpp -o test.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Awesome! Thank you Jason!
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kholdstare0.0 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37899
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37899=e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Looking at the diffs in r229628 linked by Jakub, I find the changes to lines
8791 and 8793 in pt.c to be kinda fishy:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c?r1=229628=229627=229628
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Sorry, I take the "fishy" comment back. I'm not familiar enough with the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
To add some color, maybe this is related to non-deduced contexts from
14.8.2.5p5 in the standard:
The non-deduced contexts are:
— The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
I'm sorry Markus, but "clang issues a warning" is not a good enough reason to
mark this invalid. By the same token, the warning in clang could have been
introduced "because gcc issues an error". What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Ok, I will ask stackoverflow.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Stackoverflow question/answer:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35875829/template-parameters-not-deducible-in-partial-specialization-in-gcc6-for-a-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
My issue is that this code was accepted since gcc 4.8 completely fine. Unless
there is a specific line in the standard that prevents this from working, I
don't understand how appealing to potential
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kholdstare0.0 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40009=e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78282
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Created attachment 40010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40010=edit
The source before the preprocessing step
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kholdstare0.0 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44432=edit
mangled_symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86664
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Calling c++filt on the symbol (see attachment) results in a segfault.
This may be a similar issue to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82890
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kholdstare0.0 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Minimal test case:
#include
template
struct declfunc;
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92849
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Actually, this might be bogus. If I do an explicit `using`, everything works:
#include
template
struct declfunc;
template
struct declfunc
{
Result operator()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92849
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
I think you're right. I think the bug can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Hi, it compiles fine with both.
See godbolt link for Clang using GCC's libstdc++ : https://godbolt.org/z/iFHemn
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kholdstare0.0 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code:
#include
struct A {
bool operator == (A) const { return true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Ah, that explains everything. Thank you for clarifying.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Interesting. Some thoughts I had -
- If this is the correct behavior given the C++ standard, then that means the
tuple implementation in the library has to be fixed.
- If this is incorrect
22 matches
Mail list logo
