[Bug other/98838] Spam sent to dedicated Bugzilla e-mail address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98838 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Indeed: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/2021-January/727161.html It was discussed when we moved to the new list software and it was suggested that simply replacing "@" with " at " and ".com" with "

[Bug c++/98798] Custom operator new[] and delete[] is buggy for aligned class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > I think it's a bug in libstdc++ and one can see it with valgrind: But there's no error when compiled with clang and libstdc++, so that suggests the problem is

[Bug c++/98798] Custom operator new[] and delete[] is buggy for aligned class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- I wonder if https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#array-cookies needs to be updated for aligned new[] expressions, or if G++ is just not accounring for them correctly.

[Bug c++/98798] Custom operator new[] and delete[] is buggy for aligned class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- I've reported this as https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/119 but I haven't tried to fix the spec, or fix G++.

[Bug c++/98798] Custom operator new[] and delete[] is buggy for aligned class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, I think the ABI needs fixing. In this example Foo has a trivial destructor and Foo::operator delete[](void*, size_t, align_val_t) does not have two parameters. According to the ABI, no cookie is

[Bug c++/98841] wrong ‘operator=’ should return a reference to ‘*this’ [-Weffc++]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-01-26 Keywords|

[Bug c++/98840] Why does baz call the delete operator for moved unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The ABI requires it. The caller is responsible for constructing and destroying the argument.

[Bug c++/98840] Why does baz call the delete operator for moved unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc discusses exactly this problem. See also https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2018/05/02/trivial-abi-101/ This is not a GCC bug.

[Bug libstdc++/98842] optional's spaceship operations generates wrong code when operator== is not present

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98842 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0) > The mailing list requires me to request the feature here. I put it here. > https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg94104.html > "However, I desperately

[Bug libstdc++/58909] C++11's condition variables fail with static linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- And the static libc++.a doesn't use weak symbols, so you need to link to libpthread youself, and the necessary symbols get pulled in correctly. The problem for libstdc++.a is that the weak symbols do not

[Bug libstdc++/92546] Large increase in preprocessed file sizes in C++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.3|12.0 Summary|[10/11

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3) > Relying on stdio.h even stdio.h is not freestanding. Nonsense. (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4) > BTW. std::terminate() is not thread-safe which is

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #11) > Functions without thread-safety are always terrible. Like all functions in > cctype. They should be avoided like plague. It's thread-safe though. What are you

[Bug libstdc++/58909] C++11's condition variables fail with static linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16) > The example in comment 0 fails on Fedora. Nothing in libstdc++.a causes > anything from libpthread.o to be

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #20) > 1. Freestanding C++ in the current situation is very problematic. (You do > not have memcpy, you do not have std::move. You do not have std::forward. > You do not

[Bug libstdc++/58909] C++11's condition variables fail with static linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely --- In that case it finds the no-op symbol in libc.so.6 and doesn't crash. $ g++ cv.C -g -Wl,--trace-symbol=pthread_cond_destroy /usr/bin/ld: /lib64/libc.so.6: definition of pthread_cond_destroy This

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #12) > > > stdio.h should not get included in any circumstances for EH. You are > > > implementing the operating system, but you need to enable EH by the > > >

[Bug libstdc++/58909] C++11's condition variables fail with static linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16) > Are those weak refs from libstdc++.a objects or from the user *.o files? >From libstdc++.a > If the former, perhaps we could declare some libstdc++ APIs

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #16) > That does not work in the real-world since your libstdc++'s freestanding > header never works correctly, (you get compilation errors). Try reporting a bug about

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #20) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #19) > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #16) > > > That does not work in the real-world since your libstdc++'s

[Bug c++/98861] I want deterministic exceptions (Herbception)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861 --- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #24) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22) > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #20) > > > 1. Freestanding C++ in the current situation is very problematic.

[Bug libstdc++/58909] C++11's condition variables fail with static linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909 --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely --- I don't think so. The linker just doesn't resolve the undefined weak symbol for pthread_cond_destroy is left equal to zero, and so there's a segfault when it gets called. $ g++ cv.C -static -g

[Bug target/98884] Implement empty struct optimisations on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |target Target|

[Bug c++/58354] variadic template ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58354 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.2 Keywords|

[Bug c++/17314] Error message wrongly shows declared rather than inherited access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/55120] Inaccessible virtual base constructor does not prevent generation of default constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Nick Krempel from comment #0) > The following code should fail to compile but does not: > > struct V {}; > struct B : private virtual V {}; > struct D : B {}; > > int main() { > D d; >

[Bug c++/55120] Inaccessible virtual base constructor does not prevent generation of default constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- If the invalid special member is defined out of the class body, you get another error: template struct F { F(); }; template inline F::F() { } 101032.C:4:8: error: expected unqualified-id before ‘)’

[Bug c++/101033] Error message for spelling error in copy assignment operator could be improved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101033 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c++/101033] Error message for spelling error in copy assignment operator could be improved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101033 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/101034] wrong constraint in std::any's constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101034 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/101032] Regression on parser with g++11 using experimental c++20 (compiles under c++17)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101032 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kevin.c.eady at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/101052] Suggest stdlib.h when exit(1) is called

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101052 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-14 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/101055] [11/12 Regression] should use __has_cpp_attribute() with __ prefixed/suffixed names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101055 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/101055] [11/12 Regression] should use __has_cpp_attribute() with __ prefixed/suffixed names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101055 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||http://bugzilla.opensuse.or

[Bug libstdc++/101049] std::variant: missed optimization in std::visit() on more than one variant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101049 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I don't see how this can be done in the library though, so component=libstdc++ seems wrong. Probably a dup of PR 86912 See also PR 78113

[Bug libstdc++/101055] should use __has_cpp_attribute() with __ prefixed/suffixed names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101055 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/101056] std::compare_partial_order_fallback missing the constraint of "F < E is well-formed"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101056 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/101055] [11/12 Regression] should use __has_cpp_attribute() with __ prefixed/suffixed names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101055 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.2

[Bug libstdc++/101055] [11/12 Regression] should use __has_cpp_attribute() with __ prefixed/suffixed names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101055 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.0 Summary|should use

[Bug libstdc++/101060] ‘fenv_t’ has not been declared in ‘::’ in 11.1, but is declared in 10.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101060 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/100894] The std::common_reference implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100894 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.4 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan

[Bug c++/101052] Suggest stdlib.h when exit(1) is called

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101052 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Jonathan

[Bug libstdc++/101034] wrong constraint in std::any's constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101034 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.5

[Bug libstdc++/100894] The std::common_reference implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100894 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c++/101052] Suggest stdlib.h when exit(1) is called

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101052 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Resolution|---

[Bug c++/101052] Suggest stdlib.h when exit(1) is called

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101052 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c++/101087] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/101029] [10/11/12 regression] unexpected error: non-constant condition for static assertion in gcc 10/11, but not 9 (clang also fine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101029 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's only fixed on trunk so far, which will become the 12.1 release in 10-11 months. It's a regression, so either the compiler fix should get backported to the release branches (including the gcc-10

[Bug c++/101095] New: Bogus "error: conflicting global module declaration" for abbreviate function template using placeholder type in noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101095 Bug ID: 101095 Summary: Bogus "error: conflicting global module declaration" for abbreviate function template using placeholder type in noexcept Product: gcc

[Bug c++/101095] Bogus "error: conflicting global module declaration" for abbreviated function template using placeholder type in noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101095 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/100475] semiregular-box's constructor uses wrong list-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100475 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- We should almost never use list-init in the library unless the standard explicitly specifies it. Even if the standard specifies it, we should consider whether that's a defect in the standard. Uniform init

[Bug libstdc++/100982] wrong constraint in std::optional::operator=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100982 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug libstdc++/91910] Debug mode: there is a racing condition between destructors of iterator and the associated container.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91910 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/100990] New: Iterator checks for Debug Mode cannot be used with a non-common range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100990 Bug ID: 100990 Summary: Iterator checks for Debug Mode cannot be used with a non-common range Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/90704] [LWG 3430] filesystem::path overloads for file streams are not conforming

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|SUSPENDED

[Bug libstdc++/100992] Wrong result for is_constructible for const ref of tuple of tuples

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100992 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Component|c++

[Bug libstdc++/100982] wrong constraint in std::optional::operator=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100982 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.5 Keywords|

[Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- As comment 7 already said.

[Bug c++/101015] New: Poor diagnostic for deprecated alias-declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101015 Bug ID: 101015 Summary: Poor diagnostic for deprecated alias-declaration Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c++/101006] Request diagnostic for likely concept syntax errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101006 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||67491 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/101006] Request diagnostic for likely concept syntax errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101006 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/92806] Suboptimal diagnostic for concept that depends on non-bool value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92806 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- This seems to be fixed now: a.C:8:9: required by the constraints of 'template concept foo' a.C:8:25: error: constraint 'trait::value [with T = int]' has type 'trait::', not 'bool' 8 | concept foo =

[Bug c++/97407] Expanding alias template in concept satisfaction error is undesirable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97407 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- See also PR 89370 comment 2

[Bug c++/101113] g++ thinks constructor suppressed by a requires clause is actually a bad copy constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101113 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-17 Keywords|

[Bug c++/101106] [11/12 regression] =delete on second declaration of the same function produces a note with no error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101106 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/101106] [11/12 regression] =delete on second declaration of the same function produces a note with no error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101106 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-17

[Bug libstdc++/100823] Special member functions of common_iterator should be conditionally trivial

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100823 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/101136] msdosdjgpp toolchain cannot find std::wstring_view

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101136 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- This is because the _GLIBCXX_USE_WCHAR_T macro is not defined, because etc are not complete on the target, so we don't have e.g. wcslen and other wchar_t functions. However, the wchar_t type is always

[Bug c++/101137] std::conjunction result error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101137 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- And ideally, remove everything not relevant to the bug.

[Bug c++/101137] std::conjunction result error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101137 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- I get the same behaviour if I replace all uses of std::conjunction with fold expressions and split up your unreadable long lines into simpler atoms (which also makes the code much simpler) e.g. template

[Bug libstdc++/89417] helgrind detects a lock order violation inside std::scoped_lock

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89417 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

[Bug c++/101137] std::conjunction result error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101137 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-21 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/43933] Suboptimal error message when supplying a bad default value in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43933 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's not fixed in GCC 9 though. I think it's probably fixed by r11-2546 for PR 94024 but I can't bisect right now.

[Bug c++/101137] std::conjunction result error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101137 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > template > concept SignedIntegralRef1 > = std::is_lvalue_reference_v && SignedIntegral1; Oops, that should be std::is_lvalue_reference_v &&

[Bug tree-optimization/101179] y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- On IRC Richi said: "VRP has code to do that but maybe for some reason shifts are not handled"

[Bug tree-optimization/101179] New: y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179 Bug ID: 101179 Summary: y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/101179] y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- the ?: one seems to produce better code currently though, so I'm not sure transforming it to the shift is what we want.

[Bug c++/101164] slow compilation for huge classes (>200k member variables)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101164 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- For example, the C++ front end has to be prepared to handle this: struct S { int i; decltype(i) j; int k[sizeof(i)]; }; The C++ compiler has to keep track of every name from its point of

[Bug c++/101137] std::conjunction result error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101137 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/101136] msdosdjgpp toolchain cannot find std::wstring_view

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101136 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oh it wasn't last year, it was January this year. There's a patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-January/051868.html

[Bug libstdc++/101198] libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/policy_based_data_structures_test.html is not valid XHTML; fails DTD validation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101198 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-24 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/80504] missing qualification causes ADL to be used in std::ref / std::cref

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80504 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Huh, what I actually committed doesn't match the changelog. Oops. But what I committed is better anyway.

[Bug libstdc++/101203] Remove unnecessary empty check in std::function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- We also can't guarantee that the address of the new function is unique across shared libraries, making the test in _M_equal unreliable. The technique in std::any has a fallback to using RTTI.

[Bug libstdc++/101203] Remove unnecessary empty check in std::function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- PR 56551 uses a similar idea. It wouldn't be ABI compatible with existing code though.

[Bug libstdc++/101198] libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/policy_based_data_structures_test.html is not valid XHTML; fails DTD validation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101198 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this will fix it: --- a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test_policy_data_structures.xml +++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test_policy_data_structures.xml @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@

[Bug c++/86524] [8 Regression] std::less with pointer arguments not usable in static_assert in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86524 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||v at vsamko dot com --- Comment #13

[Bug c++/85319] std::char_traits::length does not always function in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85319 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Component|libstdc++

[Bug libstdc++/101211] [12 regression] 17_intro/names.cc fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101211 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/101211] [12 regression] 17_intro/names.cc fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101211 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oh, is it this? unsigned int j:1;

[Bug libstdc++/101211] [12 regression] 17_intro/names.cc fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101211 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Ah, I bet it started to fail because I added this to the test: { dg-add-options no_pch } So this should fix it for arm: --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc +++

[Bug libstdc++/101211] [12 regression] 17_intro/names.cc fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101211 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #4) > It works for aarch64-linux-gnu, but fails for aarch64-elf (with newlib): > FAIL: 17_intro/names.cc (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: >

[Bug c++/101213] Improve support for decltype(std)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101213 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c++/92105] [8/9/10 Regression] decltype(decltype(decltype)) prints exponential number of repeated errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Glad we could help ;-)

[Bug libstdc++/101211] [12 regression] 17_intro/names.cc fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101211 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #4) > > It works for aarch64-linux-gnu, but fails for aarch64-elf (with newlib): > > FAIL: 17_intro/names.cc (test

[Bug libstdc++/97088] 17_intro/names.cc and experimental/names.cc fail with --disable-libstdcxx-pch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97088 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/101211] [12 regression] 17_intro/names.cc fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101211 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/97088] 17_intro/names.cc and experimental/names.cc fail with --disable-libstdcxx-pch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97088 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- *** Bug 101211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >