[Bug c++/110765] [13 regression] constraints on parameters of derived type in CRTP base

2023-07-21 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110765 --- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Thanks for the quick reply. I agree it is the same problem.

[Bug c++/110765] New: [13 regression] constraints on parameters of derived type in CRTP base

2023-07-21 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110765 Bug ID: 110765 Summary: [13 regression] constraints on parameters of derived type in CRTP base Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/109425] mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding

2023-04-05 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109425 --- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Thanks for the quick reply, and nice that it is already fixed for 13! I assume this will not be backported? It wouldn't be a huge problem, because it is possible to workaround with non-friend operators.

[Bug c++/109425] New: mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding

2023-04-05 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109425 Bug ID: 109425 Summary: mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug libstdc++/107471] mismatching constraints in common_iterator

2022-10-31 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107471 --- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Great, thanks!

[Bug libstdc++/107471] New: mismatching constraints in common_iterator

2022-10-31 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107471 Bug ID: 107471 Summary: mismatching constraints in common_iterator Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lib

[Bug c++/107470] New: GCC falsely accepts friend declaration with mismatching requirements

2022-10-31 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107470 Bug ID: 107470 Summary: GCC falsely accepts friend declaration with mismatching requirements Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/107202] New: inheriting assignment operators from CRTP-base

2022-10-10 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107202 Bug ID: 107202 Summary: inheriting assignment operators from CRTP-base Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/107104] semantics of __builtin_constant_p within static_assert and return value

2022-10-03 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107104 Hannes Hauswedell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||h2+bugs at fsfe dot org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/106669] incorrect definition of viewable_range ("more madness with move-only views")

2022-08-24 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106669 Hannes Hauswedell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/106669] incorrect definition of viewable_range ("more madness with move-only views")

2022-08-18 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106669 --- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell --- This affects GCC 10.4 and GCC 11.3 since move-only views were backported. The following part of the draft standard also needs changing: https://eel.is/c++draft/range.all#general-2.1 ---> decay-copy(E

[Bug c++/106669] New: incorrect definition of viewable_range ("more madness with move-only views")

2022-08-17 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106669 Bug ID: 106669 Summary: incorrect definition of viewable_range ("more madness with move-only views") Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/106320] [10 regression] build failure (due to view requirement changes?)

2022-07-22 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106320 --- Comment #8 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Thanks a lot for fixing this in a way that preserves the backport <3

[Bug c++/106369] [12/13 Regression] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.cc:5515

2022-07-21 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106369 --- Comment #5 from Hannes Hauswedell --- I have found a workaround for my code: template -class aminoacid_base : public alphabet_base, public aminoacid_empty_base +class aminoacid_base : public aminoacid_empty_base, public alphabet_base This

[Bug c++/106369] New: ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.cc:5515

2022-07-20 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106369 Bug ID: 106369 Summary: ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.cc:5515 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/106320] New: [10 regression] build failure (due to view requirement changes?)

2022-07-15 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106320 Bug ID: 106320 Summary: [10 regression] build failure (due to view requirement changes?) Product: gcc Version: 10.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/106202] New: internal compiler error: in move_fn_p, at cp/decl.cc:14907

2022-07-05 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106202 Bug ID: 106202 Summary: internal compiler error: in move_fn_p, at cp/decl.cc:14907 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/101803] CTAD fails for nested designated initializers

2022-06-02 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803 --- Comment #8 from Hannes Hauswedell --- OK, thank you anyway!

[Bug c++/101803] CTAD fails for nested designated initializers

2022-05-31 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803 --- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Since it seems like 10.4 is around the corner... any chance this will make it? Thanks a lot!

[Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11

2022-05-31 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904 --- Comment #19 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Thanks a lot!

[Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11

2022-02-08 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904 --- Comment #11 from Hannes Hauswedell --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > (In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #8) > > Hi, I wanted to ask politely whether you have discussed this issue and came > > to a conclusion? > >

[Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11

2022-02-08 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904 --- Comment #8 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Hi, I wanted to ask politely whether you have discussed this issue and came to a conclusion? It if it is still being discussed, can you at least "confirm" this issue and put it on some list for the next

[Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11

2022-01-04 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904 --- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Yes, I understand that, and I know that it is your role to uphold these rules (which I believe make a lot of sense in general) and that you have other interests to consider beyond mine :) I would still

[Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11

2022-01-04 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904 --- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Well... we also try to avoid breaking changes in the standard ^^ The thing is that code that relies on the old definition will break one way or another (and independent of compiler flags). The longer GC

[Bug c++/103904] New: [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11

2022-01-04 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904 Bug ID: 103904 Summary: [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11 Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug c++/101803] CTAD fails for nested designated initializers

2021-11-26 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803 --- Comment #5 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Thanks a lot for the fix! Any chance this will make into the 10.x branch?

[Bug c++/101803] New: CTAD fails for nested designated initializers

2021-08-06 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803 Bug ID: 101803 Summary: CTAD fails for nested designated initializers Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/101696] Function multiversioning not usable with new x86-64-v*

2021-08-03 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101696 --- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell --- What do you mean with "It doesn't work this way"? Maybe I wasn't clear in my original post; I am not interested in a dispatching mechanism for the application, I just want to have an mini-application th

[Bug c/101696] New: Function multiversioning not usable with new x86-64-v*

2021-07-30 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101696 Bug ID: 101696 Summary: Function multiversioning not usable with new x86-64-v* Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co