[Bug c++/113340] New: ICE when an explicit object parameter is attempted to be used in a destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113340 Bug ID: 113340 Summary: ICE when an explicit object parameter is attempted to be used in a destructor Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/98500] ICE template template parameter with default parameter lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98500 friedkeenan at protonmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||friedkeenan at

[Bug c++/102899] Performing `delete this` within destructor in constant evaluation results in infinitely recursive error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899 --- Comment #6 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com --- Well it says "being destroyed" not "already destroyed", because the object is currently being destroyed

[Bug c++/102899] Performing `delete this` within destructor in constant evaluation results in infinitely recursive error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899 --- Comment #4 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Just compile your testcase with additional > -Dconstexpr= -Dconsteval= -D'static_assert(x)=' > to see how it is compiled, there is that

[Bug c++/102899] Performing `delete this` within destructor in constant evaluation results in infinitely recursive error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899 --- Comment #2 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Why do you think this is a compiler bug? > If you delete this, you invoke the destructor and then the operator delete, > so when you do this

[Bug c++/102899] New: Performing `delete this` within destructor in constant evaluation results in infinitely recursive error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899 Bug ID: 102899 Summary: Performing `delete this` within destructor in constant evaluation results in infinitely recursive error message Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c++/102670] New: Erroneous "missing template arguments" message for wrapper of ADL function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102670 Bug ID: 102670 Summary: Erroneous "missing template arguments" message for wrapper of ADL function template Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/102167] New: Constexpr virtual destructors confuse memory leak detection during constant evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102167 Bug ID: 102167 Summary: Constexpr virtual destructors confuse memory leak detection during constant evaluation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/102123] New: Internal Compiler Error occurs during template deduction in use with templates as template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102123 Bug ID: 102123 Summary: Internal Compiler Error occurs during template deduction in use with templates as template parameters Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status:

[Bug libstdc++/102090] Placement-new is not constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102090 --- Comment #8 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com --- Sorry for wasting your time with this bug report. It just didn't make sense to me why placement-new couldn't be constexpr

[Bug libstdc++/102090] Placement-new is not constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102090 --- Comment #4 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com --- I think you're correct. That's really strange, but I guess that's what std::construct_at is for? But that also confuses me, how is GCC's implementation of std::construct_at working if

[Bug libstdc++/102090] New: Placement-new is not constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102090 Bug ID: 102090 Summary: Placement-new is not constexpr Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++