[Bug c++/90432] [9/10 Regression] Internal compiler error with no_unique_address empty type with constructor call followed by value initialized to non-zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/91953] [8 Regression] G++ rejects lambda with constexpr variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] G++|[8 Regression] G++ rejects |rejects lambda with |lambda with constexpr |constexpr variable |variable --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.3 as well.
[Bug c++/92601] [9 Regression] error: type variant differs by TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92601 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.3.
[Bug c++/91678] [9 Regression] decltype returns wrong type under certain conditions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91678 --- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10) > Don't know if I should pursue this backport. Seems like it depends on other fixes, not sure how hard they will be to find. Your call.
[Bug c++/90432] [9/10 Regression] Internal compiler error with no_unique_address empty type with constructor call followed by value initialized to non-zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.3/10.
[Bug c++/90997] [9 Regression] ICE on a memset in a template in tsubst_copy_and_build, at cp/pt.c:18480
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90997 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- And 9.3.
[Bug c++/90691] [9 regression] -Wsign-compare false-positive with constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90691 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|9.3 |10.0 --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill --- The fix isn't suitable for backporting.
[Bug c++/91607] [9 regression] internal compiler error: in equal, at cp/constexpr.c:1088
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/91607] [9 regression] internal compiler error: in equal, at cp/constexpr.c:1088
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a258e46458043b11495faef119489a776eb68f60 commit r10-7041-ga258e46458043b11495faef119489a776eb68f60 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Thu Mar 5 10:11:36 2020 -0500 c++: Add test for PR91607. PR c++/91607 * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-const3.C: New. --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.3.
[Bug c++/89404] [8/9 Regression] ICE in build_value_init_noctor, at cp/init.c:467
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |10.0 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Doesn't seem worthwhile to try to find and backport the fix for an ice-on-invalid.
[Bug c++/90338] [9 Regression] member function pointer non-type template parameter compile fail while matching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90338 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/88820] [8 Regression] ICE in in C++2a mode for code which is able to be compiled in C++17 mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88820 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |8.4 --- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed in 8.4.
[Bug c++/90338] [9 Regression] member function pointer non-type template parameter compile fail while matching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90338 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.3.
[Bug c++/89875] [8/9 Regression] invalid typeof reference to a member of an incomplete struct accepted at function scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |10.0 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- No need to backport this.
[Bug c++/88395] ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus, with -std=c++2a -fconcepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||h2+bugs at fsfe dot org --- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill --- *** Bug 92778 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/92778] [8/9 regression] ICE: Illegal instruction signal terminated program cc1plus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
The ICE on linux with GCC 9 is from infinite recursion checking the constraints
on
seqan3::detail::view_translate_single::view_translate_single(rng_t&&,
seqan3::translation_frames = seqan3::translation_frames::FWD_FRAME_0) [with
rng_t =
ranges::reverse_view
> > >; urng_t = ranges::ref_view >]
checking std::ranges::viewable_range for reverse_view involves
checking view_ for reverse_view ->
checking semiregular for reverse_view ->
checking copyable ->
copy_constructible ->
move_constructible ->
__is_constructible(reverse_view,reverse_view) trait
which considers
reverse_view(Rng) with Rng=view_translate_single
which tries to construct a view_translate_single from the reverse_view using
the above constructor, and repeat until we run out of stack.
So, a duplicate of 88395.
Reduced:
template T&& declval();
template struct B
{
B(T);
};
struct A
{
template
requires __is_constructible (U,U)
A(U&&);
};
int main()
{
A a(declval>());
}
This fails in
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 88395 ***
[Bug c++/93753] [8 Regression] ICE on a flexible array followed by a member in an anonymous struct with an initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93753 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |8.5
[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 88395, which changed state. Bug 88395 Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus, with -std=c++2a -fconcepts https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/88395] ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus, with -std=c++2a -fconcepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |9.3 --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.3/10.
[Bug c++/94041] [10 Regression] temporary object destructor called before the end of the full-expression since r10-5577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94041] [10 Regression] temporary object destructor called before the end of the full-expression since r10-5577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- This turned out to be a long-standing bug with split_nonconstant_init (since 4.7, apparently): initializion of individual elements of an aggregate are not a full-expressions, but split_nonconstant_init was making full-expressions out of them. My fix for PR66139 extended the use of split_nonconstant_init, and thus the bug, to aggregate initialization of temporaries within an expression, in which context the bug is more noticeable. This is a tricky one, getting back into the issues with cleanups not nesting properly that wrap_temporary_cleanups handles some of, but not this example.
[Bug c++/93922] [10 Regression] Fails to emit inline class template destructor instantiation, but which is called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/57510] subobjects not destroyed when exception thrown during list-initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED --- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill --- Let's close this one and handle the remaining cases under PRs 52320 and 66139.
[Bug c++/66139] destructor not called for members of partially constructed anonymous struct/array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.0|--- Known to work|10.0| --- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill --- No longer fixed for GCC 10.
[Bug c++/93922] [10 Regression] Fails to emit inline class template destructor instantiation, but which is called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed by reverting the patch for PR 66139.
[Bug c++/94041] [10 Regression] temporary object destructor called before the end of the full-expression since r10-5577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed by reverting the fix for PR66139.
[Bug c++/93901] [10 Regression] noexcept specifier on ctor does not work with constexpr variable or expression since r10-4394
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/93596] [10 Regression] ICE related to templates and vectors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/93901] [10 Regression] noexcept specifier on ctor does not work with constexpr variable or expression since r10-4394
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for GCC 10 by reverting the offending patch.
[Bug c++/93596] [10 Regression] ICE related to templates and vectors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/93907] [10 Regression] internal compiler error: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.c:137
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93907 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/93907] [10 Regression] internal compiler error: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.c:137
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93907 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed in r10-7133-gbde31a76ba48be49dbe26317ce5e19d10ae9f310
[Bug c++/93248] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in decltype of template constructor with default argument within a class template since r8-2712
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93248 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/92909] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on incorrect lambda inside variadic template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92909 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/92068] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on invalid in process_partial_specialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92068 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/91966] [8/9/10 Regression] pack expansion for Cartesian product breaks if certain indirections are involved since r6-1487-g1a4cd2cd7e7266b0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91966 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/92909] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on incorrect lambda inside variadic template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92909 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 8.5/9.4/10.
[Bug c++/92068] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on invalid in process_partial_specialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92068 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 8.5/9.4/10.
[Bug c++/93248] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in decltype of template constructor with default argument within a class template since r8-2712
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93248 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 8.5/9.4/10.
[Bug c++/94186] [10 Regression] compiler incorrectly accepts a requires clause with predicate of non-bool type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Andrew, thoughts?
[Bug c++/94175] [10 Regression] Passing constexpr empty class variable to function since r10-599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94175 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94175] [10 Regression] Passing constexpr empty class variable to function since r10-599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94175
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Testcase using fewer C++ features:
struct A {};
extern A a;
int i;
[[gnu::noinline, gnu::noclone]]
void f(A) { ++i; }
int main()
{
f(a);
}
[Bug debug/93751] -g1 does not behave per manual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93751 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |10.0 CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for GCC 10.
[Bug c++/94175] [10 Regression] Passing constexpr empty class variable to function since r10-599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94175 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > But for #c1 it is just a missed-optimization, while if the passing of a > constexpr var to a function isn't an ODR use, isn't it then a standard > violation that we aren't optimizing the variable read into its value? True, but the fix is the same.
[Bug c++/94186] [10 Regression] compiler incorrectly accepts a requires clause with predicate of non-bool type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94186] [10 Regression] compiler incorrectly accepts a requires clause with predicate of non-bool type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3) > Isn't this fixable by simply tweaking satisfy_atom to unconditionally issue > the error? Yes, but I thought we could do better. :)
[Bug c++/94314] [10 Regression] Optimizing mismatched new/delete pairs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org, ||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Martin?
[Bug c++/94314] [10 Regression] Optimizing mismatched new/delete pairs since r10-2106-g6343b6bf3bb83c87
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5) > I don't think we need heavy machinery linking new and delete (and if we did > I'd be tempted to store it in some global table rather than in the nodes). > The most important case is the global replacable functions, for which we > have a finite list, and for those a few checks like not matching array with > non-array versions should do. For user overloads with attribute malloc (a > gcc extension), I would go with heuristics like both/neither being class > members, being members of the same class, etc. Although I am not quite sure > how doable that is from the middle-end, how much of that information is > still available (I think it is available in the mangled name, but demangling > doesn't seem like a great idea). It should be sufficient to check whether they have the same DECL_CONTEXT.
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.4/10.
[Bug c++/94205] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression with 'this'-capturing lambda inside an NSDMI since r8-1251
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94205 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/94205] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression with 'this'-capturing lambda inside an NSDMI since r8-1251
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94205
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
C++14 version that goes back to the introduction of C++14 constexpr in GCC 5:
struct S
{
struct A
{
S *p;
constexpr A(S* p): p(p) {}
constexpr operator int() { p->a = 5; return 6; }
};
int a = A(this);
};
constexpr S s = {};
#define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X)
SA(s.a == 6);
[Bug c++/91966] [8 Regression] pack expansion for Cartesian product breaks if certain indirections are involved since r6-1487-g1a4cd2cd7e7266b0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91966 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] pack |[8 Regression] pack |expansion for Cartesian |expansion for Cartesian |product breaks if certain |product breaks if certain |indirections are involved |indirections are involved |since |since |r6-1487-g1a4cd2cd7e7266b0 |r6-1487-g1a4cd2cd7e7266b0 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.4/10. Does anyone care about fixing this in GCC 8?
[Bug c++/94453] [10 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl since r10-3591
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/67825] [concepts] expression constraint bug when taking address of a member function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67825 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2020-04-04 Ever confirmed|0 |1
[Bug c++/94453] [10 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl since r10-3591
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/91377] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE with non-static block scope constexpr, captured in lambda, used as template parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91377
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Further reduced:
struct f {
static constexpr int d = 3;
typedef int e;
};
template struct x { };
template using n = x;
template auto v() -> n;
void af() { v(); }
[Bug c++/94205] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression with 'this'-capturing lambda inside an NSDMI since r8-1251
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94205 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Patrick is working on the remaining parts of this bug.
[Bug c++/67825] [concepts] expression constraint bug when taking address of a member function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67825 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Actually fixed for GCC 10.
[Bug c++/91377] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE with non-static block scope constexpr, captured in lambda, used as template parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91377 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 8.5/9.4/10.
[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 67825, which changed state. Bug 67825 Summary: [concepts] expression constraint bug when taking address of a member function https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67825 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/94462] [10 Regression] ICE in duplicate_decls, at cp/decl.c:1456 since r10-6586-gd6ef77e023cfe0bb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94462 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94462] [10 Regression] ICE in duplicate_decls, at cp/decl.c:1456 since r10-6586-gd6ef77e023cfe0bb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94462 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/94481] [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_parser_placeholder_type_specifier)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94481 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94480] [10 Regression] ICE in cp_parser_abort_tentative_parse, at cp/parser.c:31858
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94480 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94481] [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_parser_placeholder_type_specifier)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94481 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/94480] [10 Regression] ICE in cp_parser_abort_tentative_parse, at cp/parser.c:31858
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94480 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/94523] [10 Regression] error: 'constexpr' evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use '-fconstexpr-depth=' to increase the maximum) since r10-7490-g76f09260b7eccd6c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94034] [10 Regression] Broken diagnostic: 'result_decl' not supported by dump_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5) > Here is a rejects-valid testcase caused by the same underlying issue: Actually, A does not have guaranteed copy elision in function argument passing or return. Which is a good thing, since it can't have it under the current ABI. http://eel.is/c++draft/class.temporary#3 "When an object of class type X is passed to or returned from a function, if X has at least one eligible copy or move constructor ([special]), each such constructor is trivial, and the destructor of X is either trivial or deleted, implementations are permitted to create a temporary object to hold the function parameter or result object." So I suppose my comment on Paolo's patch was wrong, and this is only a diagnostic quality issue after all.
[Bug c++/94537] Possibly wrong code with mandatory copy elision and 'this' pointer resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- As described in my patch for PR 94034, these testcases are not guaranteed to work because A is trivially copyable and therefore the implementation can introduce an extra temporary on return.
[Bug c++/94034] [10 Regression] Broken diagnostic: 'result_decl' not supported by dump_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> So I suppose my comment on Paolo's patch was wrong, and this is only a
> diagnostic quality issue after all.
Ah, there is a constexpr issue to fix: if we add constructors to A, we should
get guaranteed RVO, but still see the same bogus error.
struct A {
A() = default; A(const A&);
A *ap = this;
};
constexpr A foo() { return {}; }
static constexpr A a = foo(); // works without 'constexpr'
int main() {
if (&a != a.ap)
__builtin_abort();
}
[Bug c++/94537] Possibly wrong code with mandatory copy elision and 'this' pointer resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3) > As described in my patch for PR 94034, these testcases are not guaranteed to s/patch/comment/
[Bug c++/94523] [10 Regression] error: 'constexpr' evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use '-fconstexpr-depth=' to increase the maximum) since r10-7490-g76f09260b7eccd6c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/94546] [10 Regression] unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind nontype_argument_pack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94546 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/94510] [9 Regression] nullptr_t implicitly cast to zero twice in std::array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94510 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|[9/10 Regression] nullptr_t |[9 Regression] nullptr_t |implicitly cast to zero |implicitly cast to zero |twice in std::array |twice in std::array --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for GCC 10 so far.
[Bug c++/94546] [10 Regression] unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind nontype_argument_pack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94546 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed
[Bug c++/94510] [9 Regression] nullptr_t implicitly cast to zero twice in std::array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94510 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.4/10.
[Bug c++/94645] [10 Regression][concepts] incorrect concept evaluation with decltype, plus internal error since r10-7554-gf1ad7bac76b66257
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94645 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/94583] [10 Regression] ICE in get_defaulted_eh_spec, at cp/method.c:2421
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94583 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/94583] [10 Regression] ICE in get_defaulted_eh_spec, at cp/method.c:2421
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94583 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/79585] spurious -Wunused-variable on a pointer with attribute unused in function template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |10.0 CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/90750] [9 Regression] ICE in cp_default_conversion, at cp/typeck.c:2162
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.4/10.
[Bug c++/79585] spurious -Wunused-variable on a pointer with attribute unused in function template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.0|9.4 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.4/10.
[Bug c/89180] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wunused warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180 Bug 89180 depends on bug 79585, which changed state. Bug 79585 Summary: spurious -Wunused-variable on a pointer with attribute unused in function template https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/90992] [9/10 Regression] -Wnoexcept produce false positive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.4 |10.0 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill --- Since no other testcase has appeared, I'm calling this fixed in GCC 10.
[Bug c++/90748] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/90748] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 48413 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48413&action=edit diagnostic patch diagnostic improvement, waiting for gcc 11.
[Bug c++/90748] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 48412 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48412&action=edit fix fix, waiting for gcc 11
[Bug c++/93822] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:279 since r7-536-g381cdae49785fc4b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/94888] segment fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- G++ doesn't elide the copy because the constructor template is not eligible for copy elision: only non-template constructors are considered to be copy/move constructors. Without a destructor, the implicitly declared move constructor is a better candidate than the template, but a user-declared destructor prevents the implicit declaration of a move constructor. Adding Function(Function&&) = default; to Function fixes the problem. I don't know why other compilers do something different with this testcase.
[Bug c++/91529] [8/9/10/11 Regression] -fmerge-all-constants leads to corrupt output without inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/90749] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of, at cp/pt.c:13462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/90212] [8/9/10/11 Regression] by-ref capture of constexpr class object rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/91133] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Wrong "partial specialization is not more specialized than" error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/91133] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Wrong "partial specialization is not more specialized than" error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
This is really a question of partial ordering; determining whether the partial
specialization is more specialized than the primary class template is
equivalent to this testcase:
template struct Id { typedef T type; };
template struct A {};
templatevoid f(A); // #1
template::type X> void f(A); // #2
int main()
{
f(A()); // is #2 more specialized?
}
This was rejected as ambiguous by GCC going back at least to 4.1. It is also
rejected by EDG/icc. It is accepted by clang and msvc, like the original
testcase.
The issue is with the partial ordering deduction of #1 from #2: we deduce int
for U from the second argument, and Id::type for U from the third argument,
and those don't agree, so deduction for the third argument fails in both
directions, and the functions are ambiguous.
This is related to open core issues 455 and 1337.
I don't know what rationale clang/msvc are using to conclude that #2 is more
specialized.
[Bug c++/90749] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of, at cp/pt.c:13462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed on trunk by r11-17-g82d5decef38b5562d97c49a70ca2636a08769dbc
[Bug c++/90748] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in |tsubst_copy, at |tsubst_copy, at |cp/pt.c:15564 |cp/pt.c:15564 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for GCC 11 so far.
[Bug c++/95036] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with variadic type/nttp template templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95036 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2020-05-20 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2) > I think the thing is that we have a CALL_EXPR, something like > > OBJ_TYPE_REF (...) (.UBSAN_VPTR ()) > > and now we first evaluate the OBJ_TYPE_REF. Yep, that's the problem. We're currently sanitizing the vtable when determining the 'this' argument to the function, separately from looking at the vtable in order to determine which function to call. In C++14 we evaluate 'this' first, in C++17 we evaluate the function first. build_over_call tries to share any side-effects between the 'this' and the OBJ_TYPE_REF with a save_expr, but then cp_ubsan_maybe_instrument_member_call adds the sanitization only to the 'this' argument, breaking that sharing and introducing a fragile order dependency. A simple fix might be to not preevaluate when CALL_EXPR_FN is an OBJ_TYPE_REF, as the sharing above should mean that side-effects happen when the object argument is evaluated, which should be what we want. It occurs to me that the current preevaluation is wrong for a virtual assignment when CALL_EXPR_REVERSE_ARGS is set.
[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
