[Bug c++/97198] New: __is_constructible(int[], int) should return true

: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The sample code below returns 0 if it is compiled by GCC HEAD with c++2a mode but I think that it should return 1. sample code int main

[Bug c++/92187] New: [concepts] An abbreviated function template ignores type constraint in some circumstances

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The sample code below is compiled successfully by current trunk. == template

[Bug c++/92186] New: [concepts] requires expression outside of concept definition cannot return false

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The sample code below cannot be compiled by current trunk. == template int foo() { if

[Bug c++/68781] [concepts] requires in member function is not unevaluated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68781 Mitsuru Kariya changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com

[Bug c++/90533] New: [C++20] cannot redeclare telmplate function if it contains lambda expression in its declaration

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The sample code below should be compiled successfully in c++20 mode but gcc 9.1.0 or above generate

[Bug libstdc++/90239] New: [C++20] scoped_allocator_adaptor should support nested pair

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The current implementation of scoped_allocator_adaptor is not support nested pair. === sample code

[Bug libstdc++/87619] New: sizeof(std::variant) can be reduced if its variant_size is UCHAR_MAX

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The current implementation of std::variant stores its index() on an unsigned char member variable (_M_index) if its

[Bug libstdc++/87194] New: Associative container cannot be inserted from move iterators that refer to elements implicitly convertible to value_type

Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The sample code below is failed to compile by GCC

[Bug libstdc++/87135] New: [C++17] unordered containers violate iterator validity requirements

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Please see the sample code below. === sample code === #include #include

[Bug c++/77841] New: a new expression of a char array cannot be initialized by a string literal

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Please see the sample code below. == sample code == int main() { char* s = new char[4]{&quo

[Bug c++/70352] [C++11] auto cannot be used in the type-id of a new-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70352 --- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Sorry, I forgot to paste an error message. = error message = prog.cc: In function 'int main()': prog.cc:3:19: error: invalid use of 'auto' auto p = new (a

[Bug c++/70352] New: [C++11] auto cannot be used in the type-id of a new-expression

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The sample code below should be compiled successfully but it causes a compilation error. == sample code

[Bug c++/70351] New: [C++11] static constexpr member cannot define with a const qualifier

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Please see the sample code below. == sample code == struct T {}; struct S

[Bug c++/66287] [C++11] A constexpr variable of "const int* const&" cannot be initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66287 --- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya --- I found several examples that cause the similar error message. === sample code 1 === constexpr int copy(const int& v) { return v; } constexpr const int& r = 42; constexpr const int& c =

[Bug c++/66287] New: [C++11] A constexpr variable of "const int* const&" cannot be initialized

verity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 35627 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35627&action=edit g

[Bug c++/65398] [5 Regression] [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions with valid initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398 --- Comment #15 from Mitsuru Kariya --- I have opened a new issue bug 65642. (Sorry, I made a mistake in operation so its description is empty.)

[Bug c++/65642] [C++11] GCC rejects valid constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642 Mitsuru Kariya changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|GCC rejects valid constant |[C++11] GCC rejects valid

[Bug c++/65642] New: GCC rejects valid constant expression

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com

[Bug c++/65398] [5 Regression] [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions with valid initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398 --- Comment #13 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Thank you for your quick response. But unfortunately, I found problems like below. == sample code 1 == constexpr char f(const char* s) { return *(s +

[Bug c++/65398] [5 Regression] [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions with valid initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398 --- Comment #8 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Oh, thanks a lot! I've got it. (And I've understood the reason why clang rejects it ;).)

[Bug c++/65398] [5 Regression] [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions with valid initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398 --- Comment #6 from Mitsuru Kariya --- I also found a strange behavior like below. == sample code == #include constexpr char s1[] = "s1"; constexpr char s2[] = "s2"; bool f(const char* p

[Bug c++/65509] [5 Regression] [C++11] GCC rejects operator== with two distinct pointers as not constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509 Mitsuru Kariya changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/65509] [5 Regression] [C++11] GCC rejects operator== with two distinct pointers as not constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509 --- Comment #14 from Mitsuru Kariya --- The rev.221737 seems to be able to compile the sample code above, but cannot compile another sample code like below. = sample code = constexpr char s1[] = "s1"; constexpr ch

[Bug c++/65579] New: [C++11] gcc requires definition of a static constexpr member even though it is not odr-used

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 35143 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35143&action=edit g++ -v The sample cod

[Bug c++/54483] undefined reference to static constexpr in .so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54483 Mitsuru Kariya changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com

[Bug c++/65509] New: [C++11] GCC rejects operator== with two distinct pointers as not constexpr

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 35091 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35091&action=edit g++ -v The sample code below should be c

[Bug c++/65398] New: [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions with valid initialization

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 35017 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35017&action=edit g++ -v The sample code below should be c

[Bug c/65350] [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 --- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Created attachment 34985 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34985&action=edit g++ -v

[Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Please see the sample code below. == sample code == #include #include void

[Bug c++/65295] New: [C++1y] constexpr function causes ICE if it returns a local variable bigger than 16 bytes

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34934 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34934&action=edit g++ -v The sample cod

[Bug libstdc++/65290] New: [C++11] operator new(std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) should call operator new(std::size_t)

RMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34930 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34930&action=edit g++ -v Ple

[Bug libstdc++/64903] New: is_partitioned should not apply a predicate more than (last - first) times

: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34645 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34645&action=edit g++ -v Please see the sample cod

[Bug libstdc++/64680] New: basic_regex::operator= does not reset flags

: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34491 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34491&action=edit g++ -v The sample code below should not throw a regex_error. =

[Bug libstdc++/64585] New: The basic_regex object should not match any character sequence after a call to basic_regex::imbue

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34437 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34437&action=edit g++ -v Ple

[Bug libstdc++/64584] New: basic_regex::assign breaks *this if it throws regex_error

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34436 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34436&action=edit g++ -v Please see the following

[Bug libstdc++/64239] regex_iterator::operator= should copy match_results::position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64239 --- Comment #7 from Mitsuru Kariya --- When I used the match_results::swap on r218710, I got a compilation error. == sample code == #include int main() { std::cm

[Bug libstdc++/64441] A match_results returns an incorrect sub_match if the sub_match::matched is false

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64441 --- Comment #2 from Mitsuru Kariya --- The rev.219121 seems to satisfy the sample code above, but does not satisfy another sample code like below. == sample code == #include

[Bug libstdc++/64441] New: A match_results returns an incorrect sub_match if the sub_match::matched is false

: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34362 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34362&action=edit g++ -v Please see the fo

[Bug libstdc++/64303] New: The regex_token_iterator's copy constructor creates an incorrect iterator

ormal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34278 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34278&action=edit g++ -v Please see the foll

[Bug libstdc++/64302] New: The match_results::cbegin()/cend() return incorrect results

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34277 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34277&action=edit g++ -v The match_results::cbegin()/cend() should

[Bug libstdc++/64239] regex_iterator::operator= should copy match_results::position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64239 --- Comment #3 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Sorry, I confused the copy ctor with the copy assignment operator. But it seems that both are same results. operator= version : http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/ZHzYukOyuluuzpwu I didn't notice, but both

[Bug libstdc++/64239] New: regex_iterator::operator= should copy match_results::position

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34231 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34231&action=edit g++ -v Please see the following

[Bug libstdc++/64140] New: match_results.prefix() returns an incorrect result if regex_iterator holds a zero-length match

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34156 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34156&action=edit g++ -v Please

[Bug libstdc++/63990] New: regex_search increments a past-the-end iterator

: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34049 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34049&action=edit g++ -v The sample code below is aborted with "attempt to increment a past-the-

[Bug libstdc++/63920] Any regular expression should not match an empty sequence if match_not_null is specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63920 --- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Sorry, the last link was mistaken. The right link is below. http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/v1HhsIs8d2LrmUk9

[Bug libstdc++/63920] New: Any regular expression should not match an empty sequence if match_not_null is specified

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 34005 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34005&action=edit gcc -v The sample cod

[Bug c++/63654] New: An explicit copy constructor should be used in the second step of a class copy-initialization.

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Created attachment 33815 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33815&action=edit gcc -v The sample cod

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 Mitsuru Kariya changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com

[Bug c++/63604] New: [C++11] A direct-initialization of a reference should use explicit conversion functions

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com The sample code below should be compiled successfully but it causes compilation error by gcc

[Bug c++/63290] New: [C++11] alias declaration with exception specification should cause compilation error

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com The sample code below should cause a compilation error but it can be compiled successfully by g

[Bug c++/61953] New: [C++11] The template parameter pack of a function template should be the last template parameter

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com The both sample codes below should cause compilation error but they are compiled successfully by gcc

[Bug libstdc++/61795] [C++11] return type of std::pow(std::complex, int) should be std::complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61795 --- Comment #2 from Mitsuru Kariya --- I think that this behaviour is caused by r201253 (for PR57974, Comment 11). DR844 was fixed by r136694 but reverted by r201253. diff r135878 r136694 https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/in

[Bug libstdc++/61795] New: [C++11] return type of std::pow(std::complex, int) should be std::complex

: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com With libstdc++, the return type of std::pow(std::complex, int) is std::complex. However, In C++11 mode, the return type of std::pow(std

[Bug libstdc++/61791] [C++11] [constexpr] Additional overloads of std::real should be a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61791 --- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Sorry, the text which should be quoted was mistaken. > According to C++11 standard 26.4.9[cmplx.over] paragraph 2, "if either > argument has type complex, double, or an integer type, then both > arguments a

[Bug libstdc++/61791] New: [C++11] [constexpr] Additional overloads of std::real should be a constexpr function

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com I think that the sample code below should be compiled successfully. === #include

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

: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com std::proj returns incorrect values if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX is not defined. For example, std::proj(std::complex(1, 2)) should be std::complex(1, 2) but libstdc++ returns std::complex

[Bug c++/60842] New: In-class initializer causes a strange error

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com The sample code below causes a strange error. === source code === namespace N { class I {}; } template class J {}; class S { J j = J

[Bug libstdc++/60594] std::function of a type with a declared (but not defined) return type fails to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60594 Mitsuru Kariya changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com

[Bug c++/60209] New: Declaration of user-defined literal operator cause error

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com I think that the sample code below should be compiled successfully. void operator "" "" _x(unsigned long long); According to C++11 sta

[Bug c++/59921] New: Variable names should be ignored when qualified name lookup is applied to nested name specifier

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com The sample code below should be compiled successfully but g++ reports an error. int A = 1; enum A { x = 2, }; int

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #15 from Mitsuru Kariya --- Created attachment 30775 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30775&action=edit Patch For your convenience, I attached a patch for this problem. This algorithm is always scanned to reverse o

[Bug libstdc++/58358] New: search_n has a Complexxity violation for random access iterator

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Following code should print less than or equal to 11, but it prints 20. #include #include #include int main() { std::vector a{2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1