https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2127d2c3ee23bbd03f02d88fd82403408696ee4a
commit r10-9314-g2127d2c3ee23bbd03f02d88fd82403408696ee4a
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4dfd0f089af33f2af57bf422f9859405b9b4a16
commit r11-6918-ga4dfd0f089af33f2af57bf422f9859405b9b4a16
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94ff4c9dd98f39280fba22d1ad0958fb25a5363b
commit r11-6895-g94ff4c9dd98f39280fba22d1ad0958fb25a5363b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at marehr dot
dialup.fu-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sguelton at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With the patch for C++14 and older the problem is that the empty base has no
FIELD_DECL in the RECORD_TYPE at all, so it then doesn't find anything.
So for the empty_base && lval case it might be better to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately that patch regresses
+FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-empty9.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
+FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-empty9.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
+FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49911
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49911=edit
gcc11-pr98463.patch
Untested fix. Before the PR49290 changes, the empty_base = true; stuff has
been
guarded on !addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
template struct A { constexpr A () : a() {} [[no_unique_address]]
T a; };
template struct B;
template
struct B : B<1, V...>, A {};
template struct B : A {};
template struct C : B<0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #3 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
While I initially flagged this as a regression in gcc 11, it's indeed a latent
gcc bug which predates gcc 11. What makes it for my specific test case a
regression is because now tuple use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That just exposes a latent compiler bug though.
Slightly reduced:
#include
struct empty { };
struct A
{
std::tuple _member;
virtual ~A(){}
};
A a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
17 matches
Mail list logo
