https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98163
Bug ID: 98163
Summary: ICE symtab_node::verify failed, auto& NTTP specialized
with same entity but different type.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97645
--- Comment #2 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
(In reply to Lénárd Szolnoki from comment #0)
> This was possibly impossible prior to C++20 to subscript an array of unknown
> bound in constexpr context. As of P0388 conversion from T[N] to T[] can
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98163
--- Comment #4 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
Other example in the same spirit, but not using array of unknown bound:
```
template
struct S {};
template
void foo(T) {}
int i;
constexpr const int& iref = i;
template void foo(S);
template void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98326
Bug ID: 98326
Summary: ICE: in create_tmp_var, at gimple-expr.c:482,
converting stateless generic-lambda to function
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98419
Bug ID: 98419
Summary: wrong code when destructor of local variable modifies
returned object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98419
--- Comment #2 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
This is probably invalid, I wasn't aware of
http://eel.is/c++draft/class.temporary#3
> When an object of class type X is passed to or returned from a function, if X
> has at least one eligible copy or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97645
Bug ID: 97645
Summary: Rejects valid subscript expression on array of unknown
bound in constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97643
Bug ID: 97643
Summary: Accepts invalid qualification conversion involving
array of unknown bound [P0388]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97647
Bug ID: 97647
Summary: Accepts undefined delete expression in constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97648
Bug ID: 97648
Summary: Rejects valid direct initialization from prvalue
(private destructor)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86373
Lénárd Szolnoki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leni536 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100189
Bug ID: 100189
Summary: rejects valid conditional operators involving
conversions to arrays of unknown bound (P0388)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103343
--- Comment #4 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
A complete program example:
f.h:
```
#pragma once
extern int x[1];
extern int y;
int f(int* p, int* q);
```
f.cpp:
```
#include "f.h"
int f(int* p, int* q) {
*q = y;
if (p == (x + 1)) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #1 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
This can be turned into wrong-code.
C++11 example without includes:
```
template
struct enable_if {};
template
struct enable_if {
using type = T;
};
template
using enable_if_t = typename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101486
Bug ID: 101486
Summary: Rejects valid qualification conversion involving array
of unknown bound in function template argument [P0388]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111440
Bug ID: 111440
Summary: wrong-code for ternary with reference-compatible
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111440
--- Comment #3 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
Note that GCC seems to implement CWG2352 outside of ternary operators.
https://godbolt.org/z/rnMcPqE7b
```
template
void foo();
bool bar() {
int * ptr = nullptr;
const int * const = ptr;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111286
Bug ID: 111286
Summary: ICE on functional cast to const array reference
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111776
Bug ID: 111776
Summary: ICE on delete expression with multiple viable
destroying operator delete
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111776
--- Comment #2 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
Same ICE without destroying delete:
```
struct A {
void operator delete(void *);
};
struct B {
void operator delete(void *);
};
struct C : A, B {
using A::operator delete;
using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Lénárd Szolnoki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leni536 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106371
Lénárd Szolnoki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leni536 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111776
--- Comment #3 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
The C++ standard currently doesn't specify what the behavior of these program
snippets are. This is CWG2805.
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2805.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114877
--- Comment #3 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The standard says the results are unspecified, it doesn't say *p is written
> to,
> so I'm not sure there's a bug here.
C17 (N2176) says in the library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114877
Bug ID: 114877
Summary: wrong-code for frexp(NAN, )
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
25 matches
Mail list logo
