[Bug libstdc++/61761] [C++11] std::proj returns incorrect values

2019-04-30 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761 --- Comment #5 from Jan van Dijk --- Does the usage of numeric_limits<_Tp> in complex work well for user-defined _Tp? For complex, at present MyType can be required to be constructible from INFINITY to make proj work. Wouldn't using numeric_limi

[Bug libstdc++/61761] [C++11] std::proj returns incorrect values

2019-04-30 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761 Jan van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.v.dijk at tue dot nl --- Comment #2

[Bug libstdc++/87982] No error for std::generate_n(ptr, ptr, f)

2019-04-29 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87982 --- Comment #10 from Jan van Dijk --- Thanks a lot. And sorry for being pedantic, but I believe that the documentation of the return value of generate_n is still wrong for negative __n (see the first part of comment #5).

[Bug libstdc++/87982] No error for std::generate_n(ptr, ptr, f)

2019-04-28 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87982 --- Comment #5 from Jan van Dijk --- Thanks a lot for this change. One more nit: the standard clause 28.6.7(2) allows (== does not forbid) negative count arguments, in which case generate_n is a no-op returning __first, but this is not reflected

[Bug libstdc++/87982] No error for std::generate_n(ptr, ptr, f)

2019-04-28 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87982 Jan van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.v.dijk at tue dot nl --- Comment #3

[Bug libstdc++/11196] _GNU_SOURCE vs. M_PI

2016-05-16 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11196 Jan van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.v.dijk at tue dot nl --- Comment #10

[Bug c++/16106] Poor error message

2016-05-04 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16106 Jan van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.v.dijk at tue dot nl --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/70933] New: [7.0 regression] ICE with -Wall on valid code in inchash::add_expr

2016-05-03 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: j.v.dijk at tue dot nl Target Milestone: --- The reduced testcase at the end of this report makes rev. 235846 of the compiler ice with -Wall. Maybe related to PR70906. > g++ -c -W

[Bug libstdc++/67375] abi::__cxa_demangle crashes demangling a lambda

2016-05-02 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67375 Jan van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.v.dijk at tue dot nl --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/48323] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Lifetime of local variables: global versus member function

2011-03-28 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48323 --- Comment #4 from Jan van Dijk 2011-03-28 22:17:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) Sorry for being pedantic, but would you care to explain how your observation renders this report invalid? I am afraid I do not understand this resolution. Do

[Bug c++/48323] New: Lifetime of local variables: global versus member function

2011-03-28 Thread j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48323 Summary: Lifetime of local variables: global versus member function Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen