https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29ac92436aa5c702e9e02c206e7590ebd806398e
commit r14-9227-g29ac92436aa5c702e9e02c206e7590ebd806398e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> E.g.
> --- gcc/cp/decl.cc.jj 2024-02-15 09:51:34.460065992 +0100
> +++ gcc/cp/decl.cc2024-02-19 18:20:23.423410659 +0100
> @@ -15263,7 +15263,14 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, adjusted testcase:
struct S { int a, b; };
int foo () { return 42; }
template
const S a = { 42, foo () };
const S *b = <0>;
template
const S c = { 42, foo () };
template const S c <0>;
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g.
--- gcc/cp/decl.cc.jj 2024-02-15 09:51:34.460065992 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/decl.cc 2024-02-19 18:20:23.423410659 +0100
@@ -15263,7 +15263,14 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *dec
/* Record
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase showing that it is just this case of implicit instantiation followed
by explicit that is problematic:
int foo () { return 42; }
template
const int a = foo ();
const int *b = <0>;
template
const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> What does the standard say about changing const objects?
It says it is undefined. Note there is no changing const object in this code;
just the const variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
What does the standard say about changing const objects?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Maier ---
I have bisected the issue to:
commit 2ec399d8a6c9c26d69b73faf77c694fa3915dcec (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad)
Author: Joerg Sonnenberger
Date: Fri Sep 1 10:26:00 2017 -0600
varasm.c (bss_initializer_p):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|explicit instantiation of |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
13 matches
Mail list logo