[Bug c++/92082] New: ICE with concepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92082
Bug ID: 92082
Summary: ICE with concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The compiler ICEs with a segmentation fault with the following code:
#include
#include
template class ttp, class c>
struct resolve {static constexpr bool value = false; };
template class ttp, class ... ts>
struct resolve>{static constexpr bool value = true; };
template < class c, template class ttp>
concept instanceof = resolve::value;
int main()
{
instanceof auto x = std::array{1, 2, 3};
}
godbolt: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/99WWSW
[Bug libstdc++/83860] New: valarray replacement type breaks with auto and more than one operation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83860
Bug ID: 83860
Summary: valarray replacement type breaks with auto and more
than one operation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code results in a segmentation fault:
int main()
{
std::valarray va(16), vb(16), vc(16);
auto sum = va + vb + vc;
valarray vsum = sum;
}
If one of the 3 operands is removed from the sum, the code appears to work.
[Bug libstdc++/83860] [6/7/8 Regression] valarray replacement type breaks with auto and more than one operation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83860 --- Comment #2 from Bruno Manganelli --- Just to clarify, it still segfaults when using clang++ with libstdc++.
[Bug c++/91122] New: alignas gives up evaluating a constant expression in template context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91122
Bug ID: 91122
Summary: alignas gives up evaluating a constant expression in
template context
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code:
template
constexpr T min( const T& a, const T& b)
{
return a < b ? a : b;
}
template
constexpr unsigned long alignment()
{
return min(sizeof(T), N);
}
template
struct alignas(alignment()) foo {};
int main()
{
foo f;
}
fails to compile on gc 9.1, but worked on previous releases and works again on
trunk: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/0dSqva
I'm just wondering if the fix will be backported to gcc 9.2
[Bug c++/87970] New: Template Instantiation from empty parameter pack is not diagnosed in class specialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87970
Bug ID: 87970
Summary: Template Instantiation from empty parameter pack is
not diagnosed in class specialization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code compiles with g++ 8.1+, but fails with all the other
compilers which claim that we are trying to pass too many template arguments to
bar.
template
struct bar {};
template
struct foo {};
template
struct foo> {};
godbolt link: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/pnyPvn
[Bug c++/77755] New: [concepts] Abbreviatd function template pack expansions not working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77755
Bug ID: 77755
Summary: [concepts] Abbreviatd function template pack
expansions not working
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Pack expansions are not handled correctly in the context of abbreviated
function templates. For example, foo in
template struct S{};
template
concept bool Integral = std::is_integral::value;
int foo (S)
{
return 0;
}
fails to compile with the error: expansion pattern 'auto:1' contains no
argument packs
[Bug c++/66210] New: Variable template specialization does not work with alias-declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66210 Bug ID: 66210 Summary: Variable template specialization does not work with alias-declarations Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 35571 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35571&action=edit testcase In code such as the following, alias-declarations causes a variable to be instantatiated from the non-specialized variable template using resultType = const char*; template T pi = (T)(3.1415926535897932385); template<> resultType pi = "pi"; NOTE: using a typedef does not generate the same error and the code compiles
[Bug c++/66210] Variable template specialization does not work with alias-declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66210 Bruno Manganelli changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|minor |normal
[Bug c++/66266] New: Abbreviated function template does not behave as expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66266
Bug ID: 66266
Summary: Abbreviated function template does not behave as
expected
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Although abbreviated function templates are not part of ISO c++14 (but part of
the Concepts ts), the following code does not behave as its equivalent function
template (as described in n4377 section 8.3.5) and the assertion fails:
auto sum_auto(auto x, auto y)
{
return x+y;
}
template
auto sum_template(T x, U y)
{
return x+y;
}
int main()
{
//sum_auto returns 10 while sum_template returns 10.1
assert(sum_auto(5, 5.1) == sum_template(5, 5.1));
}
[Bug c++/66266] Abbreviated function template does not behave as expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66266 --- Comment #1 from Bruno Manganelli --- Probably another symptom of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64969 as inverting the arguments for auto_sum does not cause the assertion to fail. Apologies for the duplicate.
