[Bug libstdc++/113470] Should std::tuple_size be a complete type?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113470 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- I think the essence is how [tuple.helper] p4 is specified. Combining with [tuple.syn], template struct tuple_size; // not defined template struct tuple_size; I tend to read that a definition is required

[Bug libstdc++/108760] ranges::iota is not included in

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108760 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Michael Levine from comment #2) > (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1) > > (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0) > > > It seems wrong that libstdc++ needs to include for > > >

[Bug c++/112099] GCC doesn't recognize matching friend operator!= to resolve ambiguity in operator==

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112099 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/108760] ranges::iota is not included in

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108760 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/110853] New: [c++-concepts] Bad interaction between deduction guide with decay and constraints

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following simplified code snippet demonstrates a breakage our company code when updating gcc from C++17

[Bug tree-optimization/95825] [10/11/12/13 Regression] boost::optional -Wuninitialized with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95825 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to daniel.klauer from comment #7) > Reduced test case: > > > template > struct tc_optional_base > { > // default ctor leaves m_storage uninitialized > tc_optional_base() :

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > LWG 2743 seems to be the wrong issue, I think https://wg21.link/lwg2114 is > the right one. Ah yes, this was an unintended mislinking on my side. Feel free

[Bug c++/95686] undefined reference to static local variable within inline function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/95322] std::list | take | transform, expression does not work cbegin() == end()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322 --- Comment #12 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #7) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > > A new LWG issue has been submitted, and there is a suggested resolution. > > Will take care and inform in

[Bug libstdc++/95322] std::list | take | transform, expression does not work cbegin() == end()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > A new LWG issue has been submitted, and there is a suggested resolution. Will take care and inform in this issue here.

[Bug c++/95368] gcc things that a lambda capture is both const and mutable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95368 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/95242] [10/11 Regression] spurious "warning: zero as null pointer constant [-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant]" on comparisons with -std=c++2a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > It's consteval, the throw is there to make it not a constant expression and > give an error if anything except 0 is used. i.e. it can never throw, it > either

[Bug c++/95242] [10/11 Regression] spurious "warning: zero as null pointer constant [-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant]" on comparisons with -std=c++2a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Another way to implement the __unspec constructor would be: > > consteval __unspec(int __n) { if (__n != 0) throw __n; } > > But I think I discussed this

[Bug c++/95307] Compiler accepts reinterpret_cast in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/94923] False positive -Wclass-memaccess with trivially copyable std::optional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/94819] [10 Regression] Inherited and constrained constructors are "ambiguous" even if they aren't Pt. 2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94819 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/94721] C++2a: Three-way comparison operator for function pointers rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94721 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > Confirmed, thanks for the report. Sigh, thanks. I'm starting to realize now, that it seems that the *intention* of https://wg21.link/p1959r0 adopted in

[Bug c++/94721] New: C++2a: Three-way comparison operator for function pointers rejected

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- Using the compiler flags -Wall -Wextra -std=c++2a -pedantic the following code example //-- #include

[Bug c++/94025] Expected-to-fail compilation goes through by not detecting mutable-specifier on lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94025 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1) [..] > I'm surprised that the Visual Studio compiler (I tested 2019) rejects the > original example, this looks like a bug to me, especially since that >

[Bug c++/94644] Wrong is_nothrow_move_constructible result if used in a template first

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #2) > PR 94033 is also related to constructibity trait testing with an > inaccessible constructor. Looks like the intrinsic depends on where it was > evaluated. Indeed

[Bug c++/94644] Wrong is_nothrow_move_constructible result if used in a template first

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/94550] False positive with -Wparentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94550 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/91630] std::any SFINAE breaks valid code since 9.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91630 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- This looks like a variant fo bug 90415 to me.

[Bug c++/94619] String literals as non-type template parameter fails to compile with partial specialization of calling function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94619 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/94049] For better diagnostics CPOs should not use concepts for operator()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94049 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/94554] spurious -Waddress warning within "if constexpr" function-null compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94554 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Melissa from comment #0) > Clang errors on this case, so it's possible that my code is invalid: Is it > legal to compare a function pointer against null in a constant-expression? The example

[Bug c++/94025] Expected-to-fail compilation goes through by not detecting mutable-specifier on lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94025 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/94565] New: C++20: Comparing comparison category types against 0/nullptr is not noexcept

: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following program should be accepted, but is rejected due to a violation of the static_assertion

[Bug c++/94564] New: C++20: Three-way comparison between pointer and nullptr accepted

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following program is accepted when compiling against C++20, but should be rejected, because the C++20 working draft does

[Bug c++/94563] Relational operations between pointer and nullptr accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94563 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- To clarify the actual bug character of this issue, the following example shows it more clearly: template bool test(T*) { return true; } int main() { test((int*)(nullptr)); } This program should be

[Bug c++/94563] New: Relational operations between pointer and nullptr accepted

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following code is accepted for language versions c++14, c++17, as well as c++20 using the following additional compiler flags

[Bug libstdc++/94562] New: C++20: std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr ill-formed

ponent: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following program (using -Wall -Wextra -std=c++2a -pedantic) is rejected: #include bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr

[Bug c++/58074] [C++11][DR 1333] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074 --- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #0) > > The deleted default constructor should not prevent type Trivial of being > > trivial (Maybe this part of the

[Bug c++/61754] [C++1y] [[deprecated]] attribute warns annoyingly compared to __attribute__((deprecated))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > Would the solution described in bug 79078 comment 14 do what you're looking > for? Yes, that sounds plausible. But I'm just wondering: Don't you consider the

[Bug c++/61754] [C++1y] [[deprecated]] attribute warns annoyingly compared to __attribute__((deprecated))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3) > I find the [[deprecated]] behavior for the test cases here reasonable and > useful: the struct type is declared deprecated and so its subsequent uses > are

[Bug libstdc++/83981] vector::resize(size_type) should not require T to be CopyInsertable when std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981 --- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > Perhaps Daniel can comment, since he wrote the resolution of lwg 2033. > > Daniel, if the intent was that vector::resize(size_type) must only move, > even

[Bug c++/83956] [8 regression] error: use of deleted function ‘{anonymous}::a::~a()’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #2) > My understanding is that this is actually CWG 1353, discussed during the > Bloomington 2011(!) meeting and still unresolved. This is item 17 in this > document

[Bug c++/83956] [8 regression] error: use of deleted function ‘{anonymous}::a::~a()’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/83830] has_unique_object_representations_v is missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83830 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- Looks like an oversight on my side when I implemented http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0607r0.html for gcc.

[Bug c++/79393] [7/8 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > Which DR has been filed for this and has there been any progress on it? I understood the previous comments to refer to

[Bug c++/83160] [8 regression] lvalue required as unary ‘&’ operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83160 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/82891] stable_sort() won't compile with function object that takes parameters by non-const reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82891 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #2) > (In reply to Tony E Lewis from comment #1) > > I should say that I've also raised the same issue against libc++ : > > > >

[Bug libstdc++/82891] stable_sort() won't compile with function object that takes parameters by non-const reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82891 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/82850] g++ permits redefinition of default arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82850 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/82745] Fails to warn on narrowing conversion by std::forward (e.g. when calling make_unique)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82745 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/82749] piecewise_linear_distribution::densities() non conformity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82749 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/82247] [concepts] Name deduction in concepts fails depending on the argument type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82247 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/82171] Cant use std::declval in concept testing map operator[]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82171 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/81852] Feature request: __cpp_threadsafe_static_init

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81852 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-neg.C Thanks for your work on that Jonathan! Just out of curiosity: All tests within feat-neg.C seem

[Bug c++/81992] C++ toupper symbol clash?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81992 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/81928] if(!this) optimization leads to possible errors without warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Matthieu Brucher from comment #6) > I never said that the test alone should be banned. Please read the original > message first. I had done so before I replied. And it seems that I'm not the

[Bug c++/81947] variadic template specialization doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81947 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/81928] if(!this) optimization leads to possible errors without warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/81950] _GLIBCXX17_INLINE macro not used consistently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/81852] New: Feature request: __cpp_threadsafe_static_init

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- Since the recent update of "Feature-testing recommendations for C++", http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0096r4.html#recs.cpp11 t

[Bug c++/81632] spurious -Wterminate warning about throw in destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/79162] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] ambiguity in string assignment due to string_view overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79162 --- Comment #16 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15) > Thanks, Daniel. Let's reopen this to make the T -> const T& changes. I'm now working at that problem, thereby also attempting to implement the full P/R of

[Bug libstdc++/81468] is_constructible gives the wrong answer for time_point construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler --- Shouldn't add a DR-1177 tag? (I forgot the exact construction pattern for this) This may also help to validate that all other wording changes by this issue had been implemented.

[Bug libstdc++/81468] is_constructible gives the wrong answer for time_point construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- It seems that the implementation simply forgot to constrain overload resolution, since this is the complete definition of the affected constructor: template constexpr time_point(const time_point

[Bug libstdc++/79162] [7 Regression] [C++17] ambiguity in string assignment due to string_view overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79162 --- Comment #14 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > > Richard also says the overload shouldn't exist and is a bug, but the > > overload has to exist, because

[Bug c++/81349] Classes with deleted constructor templates incorrectly labeled as non-aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/81250] C++ warnings about unused stl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81250 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/81045] [7 Regression] return type deduction causes dependent types?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81045 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/80841] Fails to match template specialization with polymorphic non-type template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80841 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jason Bell from comment #2) > Thanks that's a good reduced example. I've changed it slightly so it works > with constexpr input. But that is just adding additional complexity: The constexpr

[Bug c++/80841] Fails to match template specialization with polymorphic non-type template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80841 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/80654] is_trivially_copy_constructible fails with compiler error with vector of uncopyable objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80654 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/79078] Warnings from deprecated attribute are too noisy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078 --- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #9) > > PR 61754 seems to be related. > > I think for the examples here it makes no difference if you use >

[Bug c++/79078] Warnings from deprecated attribute are too noisy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #6) > > Do you recommend to reopen 51222 or should I open a separate bug? I'm > > inclined to create a new one at

[Bug c++/80475] New: Unevaluated combined delete new expression doesn't handle access error in class template SFINAE

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following code, compiled with gcc 7.0.1 20170419 (experimental) using the flags -Wall

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > Maybe we should just ask Jason to suppress the notes in a SFINAE context. Yes, that sounds like a preferred direction to me.

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Created attachment 41235 [details] > avoid over-aligned new in is_constructible > > [..]. We can also combine it > with the delete check, because PR 51222 is

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > Daniel, please see above. Sorry for the late response. I would like to shortly double-check, can you await a definitive response until tomorrow?

[Bug libstdc++/78156] constexpr basic_string_view::basic_string_view(const charT *) calls non-constexpr char_traits::length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78156 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/77474] sizeof and function template don't work properly together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77474 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/77395] [6/7 Regression] std::is_constructible is false for type constructible via implicit conversion operator affecting std::tuple

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77395 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/72868] Constexpr expressions mistreat case ranges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- The quoted essentials also require you to provide the full command line (A range in a switch case is not Standard C++), please read about what's needed in the quoted document.

[Bug c++/72868] Constexpr expressions mistreat case ranges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/72865] Adding __may_alias__ attribute triggers a compilation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72865 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/72842] non-type template-parameter of type void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #5) > (In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #4) > > I'll just email. Instantiating foo creates a function template with a > > non-type template parameter of type

[Bug c++/72842] non-type template-parameter of type void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #5) > (In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #4) > > I'll just email. Instantiating foo creates a function template with a > > non-type template parameter of type

[Bug c++/72842] non-type template-parameter of type void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #4) > I'll just email. Instantiating foo creates a function template with a > non-type template parameter of type void. That's not an allowed type of a > non-type

[Bug c++/72842] non-type template-parameter of type void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- Since this is not a newsgroup, let me ask differently: Can you please elaborate what you consider as a concrete compiler defect, violating the existing standard? I fail to see the point.

[Bug c++/72842] non-type template-parameter of type void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- I don't see anything wrong with that code, since the parameter pack is empty, so there is never any attempt to declare void as non-type template parameter type. The standard has this restriction only for a

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2) [..] > I'm also not a fan of the name boolean_testable Note that no-one yet has made an improved name suggestion for this thingee that is discussed in LWG

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2) > I dislike the #ifdef parts. I'm sorry for my misleading proposal. My extended proposal is not suggesting to add this macro. I was using this macro solely

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- I have now a working implementation available, my minimum requirement set is summarized by the following trait definition: // // Utility to detect BooleanTestable types

[Bug libstdc++/71899] New: An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com Target Milestone: --- I suggest to provide an internal type trait that corresponds to the currently discussed BooleanTestable requirement set as described in LWG 2743

[Bug c++/71896] Constexpr function with pointer to member parameter doesn't return constexpr value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71896 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/71886] Incorrect error on operator() being an member in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71886 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2) > Clang also rejects the template. And Visual Studio 2015 rejects the template also.

[Bug c++/71841] variadic template can't cast to base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4) > I cannot confirm this: > > http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/Y6tlw5LQ71o1o6ei Sorry, this should be: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/3L5qgWb4x0gJw6FV >

[Bug c++/71841] variadic template can't cast to base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to johan.leroy from comment #3) > clang version I've used: > > $ clang --version > clang version 3.8.0 (branches/release_38) > Target: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc > Thread model: posix > InstalledDir:

[Bug c++/71841] variadic template can't cast to base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/71780] std::map::operator[] crashes with std::vector of objects used as key

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71780 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/71545] Incorrect irreflexive comparison debug check in std::lower_bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/70254] Compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70254 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/69924] gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for 'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/69898] Possibility for function with cv-qualifier-seq be adjusted to function pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69898 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/69717] std::pair is incompatible with std::is_constructible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69717 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/69717] std::pair is incompatible with std::is_constructible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69717 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler --- This is fixed in the current trunk (Tested on gcc HEAD 6.0.0 20160207 (experimental)). Btw.: Your test case is confusing. A better test case would be the following one, where the static assertion tests the

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >