https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 9 10:17:10 2019
New Revision: 267759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87855 fix optional for types with non-trivial copy/move
Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed for GCC 9, but I might make the minimal fix on the gcc-8-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jan 8 23:00:46 2019
New Revision: 267742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87855 fix optional for types with non-trivial copy/move
Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #17 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Nov 19 15:05:18 2018
New Revision: 266278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87855
Also implement P0602R4 (variant and optiona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #16 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #15)
> (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #13)
> > Well, Jonathan found this http://lists.isocpp.org/core/2018/06/4643.php
>
> Would you please summariz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #14 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #12)
> X(double) : X(X(42)) {} // clang doesn't like this
>
> is also enough to show the difference, no need for an operator.
Yeah. The list-archive link that you probab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Well, Jonathan found this http://lists.isocpp.org/core/2018/06/4643.php
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #12 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
X(double) : X(X(42)) {} // clang doesn't like this
is also enough to show the difference, no need for an operator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Here's another one where gcc and clang disagree:
https://wandbox.org/permlink/UsViiOoDRgdismAy
The disagreement is over
X(bool b) : X((b, X(42))) {}
where b is unused, gcc elides the temporary and clan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ---
See https://wandbox.org/permlink/snAuT59ocie38DU5
Here's a tl;dr:
struct NonTrivial {NonTrivial(const NonTrivial&) {}};
struct X {
X() : x(42) {}
X(bool b) : X(b ? X(42): X(666)) {} // clang doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to fiesh from comment #0)
> > (If this is true, is it
> > a separate gcc bug that it does not delete the union's constructor?)
>
> Yes, I think s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #0)
> (If this is true, is it
> a separate gcc bug that it does not delete the union's constructor?)
Yes, I think so. Could you please file a Component=c++ bug too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #6 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Again, fixes the issue for me with clang!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
New patch is at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01368.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #4 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Heh ok, you tricked me ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The fix is not quite right. I'll do a more intrusive one. Stay tuned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
This fixes the problem. Thank you so much for your effort!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
22 matches
Mail list logo
