[Bug c++/68374] G++ -Wshadow doesn't warn about static member shadowing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68374
xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> This is already fixed in trunk. I'm adding a testcase and closing the bug.
What do you mean with trunk? It still doesn't warn for
g++-4.9 (Debian 4.9.4-2) 4.9.4`
g++-5 (Debian 5.4.1-4) 5.4.1 20161202`
g++-5 (Debian 5.5.0-8) 5.5.0 20171010`
g++-6 (Debian 6.3.0-18) 6.3.0 20170516`
g++-6 (Debian 6.4.0-12) 6.4.0 20180123`
g++-7 (Debian 7.2.0-16) 7.2.0`
g++-7 (Debian 7.3.0-3) 7.3.0`
Ah okay this version does work:
g++-8 (Debian 8-20180207-2) 8.0.1 20180207 (experimental) [trunk revision
257435]
although I don't see why this can't be a minor version bugfix in the older
major versions:
shadowtest.cpp: In member function ‘int f::g(int)’:
shadowtest.cpp:3:24: warning: declaration of ‘mVar’ shadows a previous
local [-Wshadow]
int g(int x) { int mVar=3; return x+mVar; }
^~~~
shadowtest.cpp:2:16: note: shadowed declaration is here
static int mVar;
^~~~
Btw offtopic, aren't all these major version upgrades too much too fast? I've
lost quite a bit of time, because my system didn't work with g++5 (kernel
module didn't compile), or because CUDA didn't, or because I had
ABI-incompatibility bugs, because I linked code compiled with different
compiler compilers accidentally and the list goes on ...
[Bug c++/70213] New: Not all ambiguous cases of method constraint overloading caught?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70213
Bug ID: 70213
Summary: Not all ambiguous cases of method constraint
overloading caught?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm
Target Milestone: ---
I'm really a complete novice on the topic of concepts, but I read
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3701.pdf
and on page 5 it introduces constraints for class methods.
#include
class A {};
template bool constexpr isConst() { return false; }
template<> bool constexpr isConst() { return true; }
template
struct B {
void echo(void) requires isConst()
{ std::cout << "isConst" << std::endl; };
void echo(void) requires isConst() && true
{ std::cout << "isConst && true" << std::endl; };
/*
concepts.cpp:131:13: error: call of overloaded 'echo()' is ambiguous
ba.echo();
=> weirdly the above two functions don't return such ambiguity ...
*/
//void echo(void) requires isConst() && true && true;
void echo(void) requires isConst() && true || false
{ std::cout << "isConst && true || false" << std::endl; };
};
int main( void )
{
B ba;
ba.echo();
return 0;
}
If I don't have a complete brainfreeze at the moment, then (x && true) should
be identical to (x) and (x || false) should be identical to (x). The compiler
doesn't seem to notice that. Furthermore I don't understand why (requires x &&
true) is preferred over (requires x && true || false) and (requires x)
I'm using /opt/gcc-6/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20151213 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
[Bug c++/70213] Not all ambiguous cases of method constraint overloading caught?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70213 --- Comment #1 from xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm --- I just noticed, that as a workaround the it works to change isConst()
[Bug c++/70213] Not all ambiguous cases of method constraint overloading caught?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70213 --- Comment #2 from xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm --- to bool( isConst() ) even though this shouldn't be necessary, because isConst already has return type bool. (Sorry for split post, I accidentally pressed the send button)
[Bug libstdc++/45896] [C++0x] Facet time_get not reading dates according to the IEEE 1003 standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45896 xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm --- Comment #7 from xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm --- Had this bug when trying "%m" formatter on input "7" input. Saw the comment from 7 years ago "Can fix pretty quickly." and let out a desperate laugh. Is C++11 dead?
[Bug c++/68374] New: G++ -Wshadow doesn't warn about static member shadowing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68374
Bug ID: 68374
Summary: G++ -Wshadow doesn't warn about static member
shadowing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: xyzdragon at fastmail dot fm
Target Milestone: ---
This bug seems to be related to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45615 but the code example is a
bit different, so I'm not sure. Delete this if necessary.
This is the source code in question:
class f {
static int mVar;
int g(int x) { int mVar=3; return x+mVar; }
};
int f::mVar = 1;
The problem is, that I accidentally added int in front of mVar. When I compile
this with:
g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -Wshadow shadowtest.cpp
I don't get any warning, about the local mVar shadowing the static member mVar.
But if I don't declare the member variable to be static, then g++ correctly
issues a warning:
class f {
int mVar;
f(int rVar) : mVar(rVar) {};
int g(int x) { int mVar=3; return x+mVar; }
};
compile with g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -Wshadow shadowtest2.cpp gets:
shadowtest2.cpp:5:24: warning: declaration of ‘mVar’ shadows a member of ‘f’
[-Wshadow]
int g(int x) { int mVar=3; return x+mVar; }
^
shadowtest2.cpp:3:9: note: shadowed declaration is here
int mVar;
^
Note, as pointed out by other stack users
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/33739066/ and also tested myself clang++
behaves like I would have expected g++ to behave, that's why I'm filing this as
a bug.
The above behavior is the same in g++ 4.9.2 and g++ 5.2.1-17
