Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Using any g++ with flag -std=c++11 (14 or 17):
```
template
struct Foo {
void set(int i) {
}
static constexpr decltype(::set) i = ::set;
};
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #24 from Toni Neubert ---
Great thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #15 from Toni Neubert ---
I really cannot help you with this. I am sorry. I don't understand the
compilers source code/internals at all. I just can thank you guys for your
ongoing work. I really appreciate it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lutztonineubert at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #1 from Toni Neubert ---
Future more, the following example also fails. Could be the same root cause but
another error message appears:
accessing value of 'f.Foo::b[0].B::' through a 'B' glvalue in a
constant expression
Clang is
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code fails with:
-> error: expression 'A::get' is not a constant expression
Compiled with `-std=c++2a` un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #2 from Toni Neubert ---
Copy paste error. The above example should be:
```
struct A {
constexpr virtual int get() = 0;
constexpr virtual int set(A *o) = 0;
};
struct B : A {
constexpr int get() override {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #7 from Toni Neubert ---
First of all thank you very much for your extremly fast help!
I testet the patch and it did work for my second example.
But this one still fails, if we do not use the addressof function:
struct A {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #12 from Toni Neubert ---
Hello, I got another error using virtual classes:
```
struct A {
virtual constexpr ~A() = default;
};
struct B : A {};
constexpr bool test() {
B b;
return true;
}
static_assert(test());
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #11 from Toni Neubert ---
I tested all patches and it works as expected.
Thank you very much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lutztonineubert at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lutztonineubert at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #34 from Toni Neubert ---
Thank you both! Now everything works. :)
I'll keep that in mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #25 from Toni Neubert ---
I get: "deallocation of already deallocated storage" for test2() but compiling
just test1() or test2() is just fine.
struct a {
constexpr a(int* i) : i{i} {
}
constexpr ~a() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #28 from Toni Neubert ---
Thank you very much again for your fast help. Your patch works for this test
case.
I have another test case which fails. (Maybe more..., I am sorry).
//main.cpp: in ‘constexpr’ expansion of ‘test3()’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95159
--- Comment #5 from Toni Neubert ---
I don't think this one is valid.
But the code inside the duplicated issue could be valid:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95159
--- Comment #4 from Toni Neubert ---
I don't think this one is valid.
But the code inside the duplicated issue could be valid:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code produces a segment fault while compiling with std=c++20 on
GCC 10.1 and trunk.
The problem seems to be the deduction of N in fixed_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
--- Comment #1 from Toni Neubert ---
:23:28: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
23 | using type = Token;
|^
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following valid code:
constexpr bool test() {
auto i = 1 << 132;
return true;
}
static_asser
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code (with C++20 enabled):
template
constexpr auto nested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
--- Comment #4 from Toni Neubert ---
This code seems to fail for the same reason:
constexpr int get() {
[[maybe_unused]] auto i = 1 << 32;
return 0;
}
template
constexpr int test() {
return a;
}
constexpr int t1 = get();
constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hello,
this empty() check in std_function.h:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/std_function.h#L558
_Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203
--- Comment #3 from Toni Neubert ---
Thank you Jonathan for your fast answer.
To sad but the shared library issue seems valid.
Can shared libraries exist is a freestanding environment (like a bare-metal
microcontroller running without OS)? So
: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Compiled with g++ 10/11 and -fkeep
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Short summary:
The following code returns 1 if compiled with -O2 (which is wrong) and does
return 0 if compiled without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106921
--- Comment #3 from Toni Neubert ---
Any update on this? Which compiler flag triggers this bug exactly? Or is it a
complex combination multiple?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106921
--- Comment #8 from Toni Neubert ---
Hello,
I just wanted to ask what the state of this bug is?
I think that incorrectly compiled code should be much more important than
anything else since any system can be affected without even knowing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
30 matches
Mail list logo
