https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111808
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #4 from Laurent Rineau
---
At the compiler level, I do not think the bug is related to `-std=c++2a`. That
flags was there only to trigger the bug from the recent versions of libstdc++
since:
commit e6c76f0d3327bf00c96f5a63961c1d5ab7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Commit e6c76f0d3327bf00c96f5a63961c1d5ab77512db introduced a compila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94141
--- Comment #4 from Laurent Rineau
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> It seems that this is as currently specified in C++20, but that some people
> are going to try and change the rules to avoid breaking code like this.
Do you have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944
--- Comment #9 from Laurent Rineau
---
I still get the compilation error with gcc version 9.1.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77948
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78146
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78146
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |driver
--- Comment #1 from Laurent Rine
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Let say I have this file with one line:
auto v = 1.Q;
That file does compile with `g++ -std
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
--- Comment #7 from Laurent Rineau
---
In the test case, nfds cannot overflow, because of two reasons:
- nfds is only incremented from 0, and -fstrict-overflow allows gcc to
suppose it will not overflow,
- the number of iterations of the loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale
12 matches
Mail list logo