https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 8 19:27:32 2016
New Revision: 243457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243457=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/78551
* constexpr.c (extract_string_elt): New. Broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 8 18:37:03 2016
New Revision: 243451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243451=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/78551
* constexpr.c (extract_string_elt): New. Broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 8 18:34:04 2016
New Revision: 243448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243448=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/78551
* constexpr.c (extract_string_elt): New. Broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 40276
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40276=edit
non-union crash
Union is not necessary to trigger the ICE. All we need is to initialize a char
array with a string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #10 from Vlad Petric ---
Could someone boost its priority? Given that gcc segfaults with valid code (see
newest example/attachment), I believe it's worth a P1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #9 from Vlad Petric ---
Created attachment 40235
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40235=edit
Compliant code that segfaults the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #8 from Vlad Petric ---
(In reply to Vlad Petric from comment #7)
> Ok, so the example that I started this bug with is not standard compliant
> because it initialized different elements in a union with the constexpr
> constructor.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #7 from Vlad Petric ---
Ok, so the example that I started this bug with is not standard compliant
because it initialized different elements in a union with the constexpr
constructor.
The following does just one. I believe that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Known to
15 matches
Mail list logo
