https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94032
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We'll add it when it's in the draft standard. Adding it before then would
either mean only making it available for C++20 mode, or adding it to the shared
library exports as a stable ABI artefact. Neither se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Probably another instance of PR 93983 and PR PR 93923.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94003
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Runtime test:
struct Temp { ~Temp(); };
struct A{ A(const Temp&) noexcept; };
struct B{ ~B(); };
struct Pair{ A a; B b; };
Temp make_temp() noexcept;
void foo(const Pair&) noexcept;
void bar(const Pair&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94051
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94051
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Severity|normal
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: *-*-mingw*
This should pass on mingw* targets, but doesn't.
#include
#include
int main()
{
path p =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
words: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
If we simulate a target without PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER then
cannot be com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This causes a bootstrap failure on darwin8 for gcc-9 and master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] |[9 Regression]
| doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Doh, copy&paste error from the previous commit.
That belongs to PR 94069.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed in commit r10-7064-gb0815713a32c5cc062bd41fa75dac4d4408215fb but I put
the wrong PR number in the commit log.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, the testcase is missing "using std::filesystem::path;"
There's a similar problem for Cygwin with path("/") += "/"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94080
There is a HUGE amount of work to do to make libstdc++ support it properly.
I think I've already done most of it, but last time I tried to test it
everything failed because glibc didn't have the necessary ieee long double
support yet. I should ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94080
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Due to a server move, bugzilla seems to have lost the original comments on this
bug. They are archived at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2020-03/msg01310.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2020-03/ms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94082
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Deniz Bahadir from comment #1)
> Reading P0202 (wg21.link/p0202) (which made it into C++20) it sounds as if
> `__builtin_memcpy` should be usable from a `constexpr` context.
Why? std::memcpy i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92648
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno-gcc at defraine dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88086
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94082
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Deniz Bahadir from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Deniz Bahadir from comment #1)
> > > Reading P0202 (wg21.link/p0202) (which made it into C++20) i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sorry, I read "Creating and using **a** `std::random_device` object fails when
used from multiple threads" to mean creating one object, and then apparently
didn't read the code properly to dispel my misunde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The test case for Cygwin (which is expected to fail on other targets) is
#include
#include
using std::filesystem::path;
int main()
{
path p;
p = "/";
p += path("/x");
assert( p.has_root_name(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94115
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #0)
> filing a separate issue to fix libstdc++
Fixed in r10-7103-gc222eabcf8be0e3f644e4bd4c3316b40dba4b514
libstdc++: Fix invalid noexcept-specifier (PR 94117)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh we have more occurrences of it in libstdc++, e.g. in split_view
friend constexpr decltype(auto)
iter_move(const _InnerIter& __i) noexcept(noexcept(__iter_move()))
{ return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not in stage 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94112
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That would likely be far too noisy for use 99% of the time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #21)
> Created attachment 46102 [details]
> fix g++ problem with sqrt(z) where z is complex and imag(z) = -0
This one assumes copysign is valid for arguments of type _Tp, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94127
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's intended.
You should put the pragma after including other headers if you don't want them
to be affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94127
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Well it comes before the #include for sys2.h so affects that, but you're right
it shouldn't affect a header that isn't being included by sys.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Oh we have more occurrences of it in libstdc++, e.g. in split_view
Fixed in r10-7108-gcf0c3a457319df1e8dc9321227162a7c57169a39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94132
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
"A structure containing a flexible array member, or a union containing such a
structure (possibly recursively), may not be a member of a structure or an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93699
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[gcc10] Invalid operator== |Invalid operator==
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93699
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. it helps to provide a testcase that doesn't have lots of spurious warnings
when compiled with -Wall -Wextra, because one of the first things I'm going to
do when triaging bug reports is compile with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90301
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91590
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-09-02 00:00:00 |2020-3-11
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|--- |10.0
Version|unknown |10.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.0
Summary|is_trivially_copy_construct |[10 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think that change to the compiler was OK, but it looks like the accompanying
"simplification" of was the culprit. Thanks for the bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94142
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthew Fernandez from comment #0)
> This seems surprising to me. Shouldn't x and y have the same signedness as
> they're both the type of the enum? It seems like somehow the type of an enum
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #60 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no wiggle room, we're definitely non-conforming.
Maybe the changes could be limited to -std=gnu++NN modes only, although Paolo
argued strongly against that in this bug report.
It doesn't seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94003
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||41437
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In C++20 this is well-formed:
using T = int[2];
T t(1, 2);
which means that std::is_constructible_v should be true.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94149
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 45011, which changed state.
Bug 45011 Summary: template function specialization: does not respect access
specifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45011
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45011
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94152
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81419
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I get an ICE with this use of parenthesized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94155
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #1 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4 is a different change to
58487c21b6a47c3fff6c6958684de866216a5593
The gcc-9 commit that corresponds to 58487c21b6a47c3fff6c6958684de866216a5593
is d9940358fa463060
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a fix for master, I'm just trying to figure out why we aren't seeing
this on the gcc-9 branch too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it doesn't show up for gcc-9 because there are also std::tuple changes
on master that make the bug show up.
And I think what's happening is another instance of PR 41437. When
std::optional is inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 66475, which changed state.
Bug 66475 Summary: Access checking in templates circumvented with 'using'
(C++11)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79163
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 79163, which changed state.
Bug 79163 Summary: Access-checking not done in template argument list of
partial specialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79163
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-19 00:00:00 |2020-3-12
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|2010-09-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94160
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-12
Status|UNCONFIR
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This calculation in __pool_resource::_M_alloc_pools() can result in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94164
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not an iterator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 48044
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48044&action=edit
Candidate patch
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This fails to compile, but I think should be valid:
template
_Up
__declval(int);
template
_Tp
__declval(long);
template
auto declval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The reason I haven't committed it yet is I had to figure out a workaround for
PR 94197 which caused some tests to fail with my earlier patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94197
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94198
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See also http://c-faq.com/lib/libsearch.html
Order of source files (or generated object files) relative to libraries
matters, and preserving it matters,
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown |9.3.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94197
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94199
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94199
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've reported a new library issue (LWG 3414) suggesting we add a public default
constructor.
||2020-03-17
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|unknown |9.3.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks! And PR 94197 is also now fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94209
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94213
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94214
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks like a dup of PR 51577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niklas at nolte dot dev
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94214
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88466
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93923
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94062
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94062
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94062
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82113
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94062
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced:
struct Bar1
{
Bar1(Bar1&&) = delete;
};
struct Foo1
{
operator Bar1() const;
};
struct tuple : Bar1
{
tuple() : Bar1(Foo1{}) { }
};
tuple t;
elide.cc: In constructor 'tuple::tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94062
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #7)
> But I guess to fix this you would have to break ABI (or change C++ standard).
No, we can switch to using a data member with the [[no_unique_address]]
attribute, wh
1 - 100 of 20951 matches
Mail list logo
