https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Mon Jul 13 20:35:53 2015
New Revision: 225749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225749root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/65186
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #11)
Hi Patrick. Opening a new bug certainly is OK, in particular in this case
where we failed to just simplify the testcase originally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Hi Patrick. Opening a new bug certainly is OK, in particular in this case where
we failed to just simplify the testcase originally submitted. Thus, when your
patch goes in,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks Patrick!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When I said that this PR is not a dup of c++/30044 I sadly failed to look at
#c1 and instead only looked at #c3. The test case in #c1 does appear to
effectively be a dup of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
Dup of c++/30044?
I don't think it's a duplicate but they do seem related. My patch for
c++/30044 does not fix this ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In fact comment 3 doesn't even need C++11, it's valid C++03.
It came from http://stackoverflow.com/a/29696258/981959
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
14 matches
Mail list logo
