https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114479
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #31 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Oops, I guess my reading did disagree with jwakely's in one small point:
jwakely writes--
> But since one of the pointers is an invalid pointer,
> you can't do anything with its value anyway, including
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #30 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
I think I understand jwakely's argument at this point, and it's consistent and
teachable. https://eel.is/c++draft/class.temporary#3.sentence-1 says:
> When an object of class type X is passed to or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113789
--- Comment #10 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
FWIW, I think I agree with your analysis. To reiterate what you already said
(and I think GCC already gets the following snippet correct): in
X g (X x) try {
throw x;
} catch (...) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113853
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113789
--- Comment #6 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> IOW, this should be accepted in C++23 but isn't (clang++ accepts in C++23):
> [...]
Correct, at least that's my intended interpretation. But the unexpected
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
P2266 "Simpler Implicit Move", adopted for C++23, intends that a move-eligible
`x` should be treated as
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/KWv8n6zEG
struct S {
int x_;
void f() {
[this](this auto) {
return this;
};
}
};
GCC trunk complains:
:5:16
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/34Wdj1ox8
template
struct S {
S(int) {}
void operator=(int) {}
void f
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/fd3zzfrTd
auto factory(int x) {
return [x=x](this auto self
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/EGv36xzY6
template struct A;
template void foo();
int i;
int main() {
foo>();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102470
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99524
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/W9P6GrG4x
#include
int main() {
try {
throw nullptr;
} catch
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
template
concept Throwable = requires { throw T(); };
struct Incomplete;
static_assert(!Throwable);
static_assert(!Throwable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94039
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #6 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to James Y Knight from comment #5)
> > Does using __builtin_is_constant_p on the union member not work?
>
> I've created a proof-of-concept patch for libc++ to support SSO strings
> during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #1 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(Author of the blog post here.)
In contrast to James' view, I think the libstdc++/MSVC behavior is relatively
easy to explain; I think libc++'s `if consteval` approach is baroque and
confusing. [That is,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86646
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #13 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> I suspect this is a dup of bug 100470 then.
Yep, I agree. My previous comment was a longwinded version of jwakely's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94162
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101943
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Bug #98712 seems related.
// https://godbolt.org/z/eKKxcovEn
struct D;
struct B {
bool operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
--- Comment #2 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> Alternatively, we could replace the contiguous_iterator<_OutIter> constraint
> with constructible_from, _OutIter, iter_difference_t<_OutIter>>.
I think `is_same` is preferable to
-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/9onGvqfha
#include
#include
#include
void f(std::list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110102
--- Comment #9 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #6)
> > I still think it would be nice if GCC stopped supporting
> > int f(std::vector v) { return v[0]; }
> > ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110102
--- Comment #6 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #4)
> > My first, reduced, example, where `std::list v = {1,2,3}` is accepted for
> > move-only type `A`, is 100% a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110102
--- Comment #4 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
I came across the `Widget` bug in the course of writing (and it's now mentioned
in) this blog post on value semantics and PMR:
: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm not clear on the entire behavior of -Wwrite-strings; bug 61579 seems
relevant. So there's probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #11 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #7)
> > // https://godbolt.org/z/Ea43Y65z4
> > struct Widget {
> > int i = 1;
> ...
> > In this case, Widget has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
--- Comment #7 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Richard Biener wrote:
> Are we using the wrong check or is escaping 'this'
> for these kind of classes invoking undefined behavior?
Wow, this got a lot of traffic quickly! Sounds like you (Richard,
-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Background:
https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2021/03/07/copy-elision-borks-escape-analysis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108759
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #23 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
>
> Richi suggested that we could avoid these runtime branches (which hurt
> optimization, see PR 109445) if we knew how many bytes of tail padding there
>
rds: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/ex97db8cT
template
struct B {
int f() { retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100248
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/bdT84P318
template
struct A {
static void g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #11 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> std::move(x,y,z) and std::copy(z,y,z) use the same underlying
> implementation, so it does have the same issue, but will be fixed by the
> same change.
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/EfdG4nzv9
#include
#include
struct B {
B(int i, short j) : i(i), j(j) {}
int i
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
C++20 permits structured bindings (decomposition declarations) to be `static`.
This means we can use them in inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108216
--- Comment #1 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Possibly tangentially related: #70644, #81051
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/6qMTY6bGn
#include
struct A *ga = nullptr;
struct B *gb = nullptr;
struct C *gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87697
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/T1vPGYash
template
struct Array {
template
operator Array() const
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
(Originally reported by Nicholas Sielicki on the cpplang Slack)
// https://godbolt.org/z/138cPv5cn
#include
#include
std::bitset<1> a = {1};
std::bitse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104792
--- Comment #2 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
@Andrew Pinski: Sorry, looks like my description ended up not matching the
Godbolt (I said "three lines marked X," but there are only two lines marked X,
for example.)
Here's the Godbolt with one of the
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This might be considered "not a bug", or "duplicate of #61596", or "bug but in
a different way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350
--- Comment #12 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
jwakely wrote:
> Correction: they need to be the same type. We can't memcpy here:
>
> struct A { };
> struct B { B() = default; B(A) { do_stuff(); } };
>
> void (A* f, A* l, B* out) {
>
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/3efs3aY67
#include
int main() {
std::vector v;
v.insert(v.begin()); // libstdc++ accepts
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC seems to be unable to optimize some nested array accesses of the form
p[i/N].data[i%N] into a simple ((T*)p)[i]. The C test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101421
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101239
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96441
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102419
--- Comment #4 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> IMHO Clang/MSVC are clearly misbehaving here -- when evaluating the
> concept-id X, they appear to be substituting {int} into X's
> constraint-expression instead of into the normal form of X's
>
sion: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/GWjYYnrnM
template concept Y = true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94673
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81157
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92505
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81078
--- Comment #3 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Yes, this is a libstdc++ issue.
I'm not 100% sure that "the RTTI [generated by GCC] is correct," because I
don't know how to use GCC with libc++; but yeah, there's definitely at least
some problem with
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/9zP5dP3sE
#include
struct T {
int x;
T(int) noexcept;
~T();
};
T factory(int) noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #13 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> And are you recommending that everyone who defines their custom contiguous
> iterators specializes pointer_traits for them? Call it _quite_ annoying...
Definitely not! When you define a contiguous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76262
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70816
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/b3P6Ta
#include
struct Original {};
struct C {
C(const Original&);
C(C&&) noexcept;
C& operator=(const Or
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/hx7h7v
struct Base {
virtual int f
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/qh1zos
template concept Signed = bool(T(1));
static_assert(Signed);
Compile with "-std=c++20&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639
--- Comment #5 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Meh, I guess this is just an unintended (but conforming) consequence of the
shifting C++17/20 rules. Jonathan links to
https://twitter.com/wakomeup/status/1274778577087627267 as another example:
//
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/96EEPa
struct Base {};
struct Derived : Base {};
Derived t() { Base b; return Derived(b); }
// https://godbolt.org/z/G4covG
auto lam = [i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97034
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/xavfej
#include
struct Incomplete;
template struct Holder { T t; };
Holder *p;
void test() {
::new (p) int;
new (p) int;
}
In an "ADL
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/qq7196
struct S {
template static
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/sxWY1f
template
concept C = requires (P ptr) { (struct D*)ptr
verity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/841ahx
template struct A;
A<{}> a;
In -std=c++17 mode, this gives an error as expecte
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/7onfa6
struct G {
static int min(int=0) { return 1; }
int min() && {
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
#include
#include
struct S {
void operator delete(void*);
};
static_assert(std::is_same_v<
decltype(S::operator delete),
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68003
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93085
--- Comment #3 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Re comment 2: My original test code was "invalid-code", but here's one I
believe to be "valid-code" in C++20.
// https://godbolt.org/z/dqcWeq
template class A>
struct G {
template using B = A;
FIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/neqx1q
cat >test.cpp <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95407
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/Kc98ea
struct A { int x; };
extern A a;
templat
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/rafY6G
template
concept PackHasAdd = (requires(Args... args) {
(args+1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96213
--- Comment #2 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Here's a similar situation I just ran into again, somehow!
// https://godbolt.org/z/3TKG1z
struct S {};
template void f() {}
template void g() {}
int main() {
f(); // correctly errors out
g(); //
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96215
--- Comment #2 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
WG21's commentary on CWG 1273 (which is now
http://cwg-issue-browser.herokuapp.com/cwg1172
) seems completely bizarre to me. Sure, `decltype(g.x)` could theoretically
refer to a private member of `g`; but
MED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/z4rjjq
struct S { int x; int operator*() const; };
extern const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39970
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82850
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Possibly related (although these seem to complain about the opposite of what
I'm complaining about):
- https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93295
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
David Blaikie, Richard Smith, and I discovered this GCC bug while tracking down
a separate bug in llvm
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/FCqkWh
template concept A = true;
struct S {
virtual int foo(A auto) = 0;
};
g++ test.cc -std=c++2a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #23 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
@Dan Stahlke: I believe
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47464819/uninitialized-copy-memcpy-memmove-optimization
answers your question. Or, if it doesn't, then Marc or someone should consider
posting an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
// https://godbolt.org/z/KhiNKJ
template class A>
struct G {
template using B = A;
templ
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
cat >test.cc <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
