https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95153
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93983
--- Comment #8 from TC ---
(really from Tim)
This is https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3420
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
We have
_Fp
load(memory_order __m = memory_order_seq_cst) const noexcept
{ return __atomic_impl::load
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
std::variant x;
std::visit([] (auto i) { return i; }, x);
produces a less than ideal error with libstdc++:
In file included from :1
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
struct A {
[[gnu::flatten]] A() {}
[[gnu::flatten]] ~A() {}
};
A a;
Produces no warnings with GCC 9 but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96042
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96331
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97120
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
From https://stackoverflow.com/q/59379703/2756719; the current gcd
implementation is essentially
template
constexpr common_type_t<_Mn, _Nn>
__gcd(_Mn __m, _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86238
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from TC
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
struct S {};
template
void check(T C::* const&);
int (S::*f)();
using t = decltype(check(f));
Rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91243
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
Well, this is a library bug report, not a compiler one...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91243
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
I don't think we should use decltype's special rule in this context :)
Also, std::is_nothrow_invocable_v hard-errors in libstdc++, because the
noexcept operator doesn't have that rule...
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Reduced:
template T&& declval();
template
void __test_aux(_To1);
template(declval<_From1>()))>
char __test(int);
template
int _
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Per [basic.scope.pdecl]/3,
> The point of declaration for an enumeration is immediately after
> the identifier (if a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
Bah, must have copy-pasta'd the semicolon somewhere when reducing the original
and didn't notice :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85714
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85714
--- Comment #4 from TC ---
[dcl.enum]p4:
The underlying type can be explicitly specified using an enum-base. For a
scoped enumeration type, the underlying type is int if it is not explicitly
specified. In both of these cases, the underlying type
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
#include
struct S { friend struct F; protected: ~S(); };
struct F { S operator()() { return {}; } };
static_assert(!std
oduct: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91653
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83181
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
libstdc++ has the trait but not the _v form, which was added by the editor per
NB comment US-9 on the C++17 CD, see
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
From https://stackoverflow.com/q/48248565/2756719.
The constructor initializes _M_gd with (__n / 2), but param(const
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
std::thread::__make_invoker uses make_tuple, which unwraps reference_wrappers,
so instead of passing a DECAY_COPY&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84689
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Repro:
#include
struct moveonly {
moveonly() noexcept { }
moveonly(moveonly
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Reduced from http://stackoverflow.com/q/35027853/2756719:
struct A { A(int = 0); };
template class meow;
template A foo;
template A foo> = 1;
auto&& a = foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
Another test case, slightly modified from the original in the linked SO
question:
struct X {
auto get(int) const & -> int { return {}; }
auto get(int) && -> long { return {}; }
};
template auto f(auto (X::*)(int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68515
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC
D
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Modified repro from http://stackoverflow.com/q/35352168/2756719:
struct A {
typedef int& refer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69774
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from TC
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
None of them is implemented correctly, and several won't compile if actually
used.
template>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
--- Comment #8 from TC ---
The standard specifies when copy elision is allowed
(http://eel.is/c++draft/class.copy#31). "return param ? a : b;" is not one of
them. "param ? a : b" is hardly "the name of a non-volatile automatic
object..."
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Repro:
void meow() {
void purr();
void (&f)() = purr;
[f]{};
}
Per [expr.prim.lambda]/15, capturing a reference
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Repro:
template class meow;
template struct purr;
template
struct purr...> {};
templat
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
p/P followed by +/- is not part of the pp-number production in C++ before
C++17, but GCC includes them anyway. This results in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70587
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|6.0
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Reduced from http://stackoverflow.com/q/36578055/2756719.
The following ill-formed code is incorrectly accepted by GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60799
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70667
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
--- Comment #7 from TC ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to TC from comment #5)
> > In any event, it would be wrong to SFINAE on
> > std::is_copy_constructible. The requirement is CopyInsertable,
> > not CopyConstructi
rity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
1) istream_iterator and ostream_iterator's constructors and istream_iterator's
operator-> should use __a
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following modified test case (replacing postfix ++ with prefix and
adjusting the expected values accordingly) from PR61382 still aborts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70101
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
Test case for everything except the first:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
struct Cmp : std::less {
explicit Cmp(int) {};
};
Cmp comp(1);
std::allocator alloc;
std::vector vec;
using PQ = std::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70942
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
template
void foo(T t) {
using meow = T;
using meow = int;
}
template void foo(int);
Accepted by clang, rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70942
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
This only appears to affect captureless generic lambdas with a deduced return
type.
It might have something to do with the conversion function template to function
pointer - I'm guessing that it was somehow instantiate
Keywords: rejects-valid, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code, accepted by GCC 5.3, fails to compile in GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
Originally from http://stackoverflow.com/q/37064993/2756719
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
Not exactly that familiar with GCC, but looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/method.c?r1=233719&r2=233718&pathrev=233719
tree type = TREE_TYPE (parm);
if (DECL_PACK_P (parm))
type = PACK_EXPA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
It occurred to me that one issue here is whether initialization of the
parameter object (of the constructor) is considered a "value computation [or]
side effect associated with" an initializer-clause. If not, then the c
rsion: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC correctly diagnoses the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71332
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81669
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81750
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81398
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81911
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81857
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57170
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
void meow() {
int a[3][4];
for(const auto r : a)
for(auto e : r) {}
}
This emits
prog.cc: In function 'void meow()':
pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80564
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80670
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80737
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80736
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80737
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #3)
> (In reply to TC from comment #1)
> > Looks like the constraint on the convert-everything constructor needs to
> > check for is_same, variant> first and short circuit if that's
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80767
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80795
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80908
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
No specialization of the following helper function templates can meet the
constexpr function requirements, and therefore they should
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Another issue (compare bug 80384 and bug 80908) with the extension making
noexcept(E) to be a deduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC
: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Because the primary template is left undefined, the cv specializations of
__byte_operand causes a hard error for nonintegral types:
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81263
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
eclaration
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
From http://stackoverflow.com/q/41326047/2756719.
GCC accepts this plainly invalid code:
void f() {
void(*);
}
It appears that any combination of ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Apparently what changed in C++11 is that it allows static
> data members in unions and those clearly can have reference type, so that is
> the reason why the restriction has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
--- Comment #7 from TC ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Sure, I just wanted to understand why the r211318 change has been done and
> my comment lists why I think that happened.
Ah, my fault for not actually reading the patch. (F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
--- Comment #10 from TC ---
C&P'ing the relevant parts of my email to the lists here for the record:
The new default member initializers use {}, and it's not too hard to find test
cases where {} and value-initialization do different things, incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77451
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This does not compile:
#include
struct A {};
struct B : A {};
struct C : A {};
auto arr = std::experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79195
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
While we are here, the `return {{forward<_Types>(__t)...}};` in the body should
call std::forward qualified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70844
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
template
struct meow;
template
struct meow { };
template struct meow<1>;
prog.cc: In substitut
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
template
struct meow;
template
struct meow { };
template struct meow<1>;
prog.cc: In substitut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
-std=c++1z, of course.
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/kxNlvdtfvjCW5fNN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78308
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66477
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC incorrectly accepts
auto const meow() -> int;
[dcl.fct]/2 says only plain 'auto
-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00665.html "allow[ed]
noexcept(E) to be a de
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Trunk GCC accepts this code given -std=c++03 or -std=c++14:
struct A {
A(int) {};
};
struct B : public virtual A {
virtual void foo
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Since it stores two paths and a string directly as members.
This violates [exception]/2:
Each standard library class T that derives from class exception shall have a
publicly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Reduced from http://stackoverflow.com/q/39460120/2756719:
template class> struct meow {};
template using ki
1 - 100 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
