https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109283
--- Comment #3 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
Appears fixed in 13.1
Still ICEs in trunk,
Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-70d038235cc91ef1ea4fce519e628cfb2d297bff-binutils-2.40)
14.0.0 20230508 (experimental):
: In function 'std::generator >
source(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498
--- Comment #22 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
CWG 1430 seems to be about disallowing a construct that requires capturing an
alias declaration into a name mangling. This bug and at least some of those
referred to it do not ask for any such action
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109283
--- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
Betting this one is fixed by deleting code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109291
--- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
CWG 1430 is still marked Open, and is anyway only superficially
analogous. Here, there is no need for an alias to be encoded
into a type signature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109291
Bug ID: 109291
Summary: type alias template rejects pack
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109283
Bug ID: 109283
Summary: Destructor of co_yield conditional argument called
twice
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68703
--- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
(In reply to ncm from comment #9)
> This bug appears not to manifest in g++-8, 9, and 10.
Of the three code samples in comment 4, the first and
third fail to compile because N is undefined. What
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
ncm at cantrip dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncm at cantrip dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736
--- Comment #12 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
As it is, your probability of failure in 9 and 10 is exactly 1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736
--- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
Don't understand, the compiler we are using (9) has the
regression. It looks like a trivial backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42857
--- Comment #9 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Probably changed by one of the patches for PR 94749 or PR 96161, although I
> still see two reads for the first example.
Thank you, I was mistaken. Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68703
--- Comment #9 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
This bug appears not to manifest in g++-8, 9, and 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66028
--- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
This bug appears not to manifest in g++-10.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42857
--- Comment #7 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
This bug appears not to manifest in g++-10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58855
--- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
This bug is still present in g++-10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736
--- Comment #6 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
The referenced patch seems to have also deleted a fair bit of explanatory
comment text, including a list of possible refinements for selected targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736
Bug ID: 97736
Summary: [9/10 Regression] switch codegen
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
17 matches
Mail list logo