https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #15 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Boost 1.58.0 has a workaround by making one function explicit.
(https://github.com/boostorg/polygon/commit/634aa3de29d63dcf02a478ca2b5045c5e9ccb7e0)
Since this means the bug becomes irrelevant for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #14 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Bounty: EUR 150
I'd like to try something new and place a bounty on this issue. In order to
collect it, you have to provide a patch that is accepted into 4.9 and 5. You
also need to be able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Are there any news on this bug? At least for us, this keeps production code
from being able to work with any boost 1.55, which is becoming an increasingly
bigger issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |4.8.5
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You should have read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ and attached preprocessed code
anyway, not everyone has Boost 1.56 already installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #3 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
I wanted to, but the problem is that the ii file is 2.7MB, more than the
maximum allowed file size of 1000KB. Should I upload it to a different site?
Also I just realized that the problem only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #3)
I wanted to, but the problem is that the ii file is 2.7MB, more than the
maximum allowed file size of 1000KB. Should I upload it to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33545
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33545action=edit
preprocessed testcase
Here's the unreduced testcase. I cannot reduce it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is what C-reduce came up with:
markus@x4 ~ % cat boost.ii
template typename _Tp
struct integral_constant {
static constexpr _Tp value = 0;
};
template typename...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or a bit more compact and obfuscated:
template typename _Tp
struct A {
static constexpr _Tp value = 0;
};
template typename...
struct B;
template typename _B1
struct B_B1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
template typename _Tp
struct A {
static constexpr _Tp value = 0;
};
template typename...
struct B;
template typename _B1
struct B_B1 : _B1 {};
template typename _Tp
_Tp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #9 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ever so little simplified:
struct A {};
template typename _B1
struct B : _B1 {};
template typename _Tp
_Tp declval();
template typename _From, typename _To
struct C {
template typename _From1,
17 matches
Mail list logo
