https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66218
--- Comment #3 from Casey Carter ---
Now this program compiles:
template
concept bool Same = __is_same_as(T, U);
template
concept bool C =
requires {
{ 0 } -> Same;
{ 3.14 } -> Same;
{ nullptr } -> Same;
{ "Hello, World!" }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66844
Bug ID: 66844
Summary: [c++-concepts] Requires-expression parameter with void
type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66843
Bug ID: 66843
Summary: g++ outputting nonsense errors, won't compile
operational program
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
Bug ID: 66842
Summary: libatomic uses multiple locks for locked atomics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
When I said that this PR is not a dup of c++/30044 I sadly failed to look at
#c1 and instead only looked at #c3. The test case in #c1 does appear to
effectively be a dup of c++/30044, and with the fix for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17267
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17267
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30044
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #6 from Eric Niebler ---
Exhaustively overloading Constructible to avoid the kind mismatch and the
ambiguity runs into a different problem:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66841
I haven't filed an issue for the ambiguity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66819
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58734
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58734
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Jul 11 18:17:41 2015
New Revision: 225713
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225713&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58734
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66841
Bug ID: 66841
Summary: [concepts] bogus error "invalid reference to function
concept" when function concept is overloaded
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58734
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
In fact the released 4.9.0 also doesn't fail. Let's the testcase and close the
bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #5 from Eric Niebler ---
I would expect a partial ordering to prefer the two-parameter overload in that
case. But yeah, it's a separate issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Patrick!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66840
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Add it to TM_H.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #4 from Casey Carter ---
I conjecture that Constructible() is ambiguous, since both templates will
specialize for it. I was thinking:
template
concept bool Constructible() {
return requires {
T{};
};
}
template
concept boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #3 from Eric Niebler ---
I was thinking that overloading the Constructible concept would be a conforming
way to express this, but it doesn't seems to work. Any clue why?
template
concept bool Same = __is_same_as(T, U);
template
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66840
Bug ID: 66840
Summary: [5/6 Regression] plugins fail to build on
powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Sutton ---
I think that this is invalid too. There's an expansion from an
uninstantiated template argument pack into a pair of template
parameters.
I think the program must be ill-formed in this case. It's not possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66839
Bug ID: 66839
Summary: g++ accepts NSDMI with -std=c++98 when the intializer
is a macro defined in a standard header
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66353
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sat Jul 11 10:03:38 2015
New Revision: 225711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66353
* basic-block.h (has_abnormal_call_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
> To reproduce:
>
> $ wget
> http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/procps/procps_3.3.10.orig.tar.xz
> $ tar xf procps_3.3.10.orig.tar.x
28 matches
Mail list logo
