,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
This was changed by r15-3740 which corrected our CWG 2273 implementation to
apply the inherited-ness tiebreaker only to constructors rather than to all
member functions, and as you point out the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99546
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119814
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119807
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Summary|[14/15 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119807
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 115639, which changed state.
Bug 115639 Summary: Large variations in compilation times involving
static_assert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
What|Removed |Added
--
|RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Fixed for GCC 15, thanks for the report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> > ... and in particular if we have a cached mce_unknown call result it means
> > the call isn't sensitive to mce, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> > > The second time around, we're not finding the call in
> > > co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119687
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119574
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
Fortunately a trivial fix --- alias_ctad_tweaks needs to use lkp_iterator
instead of ovl_iterator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka ---
I think I see what you mean -- for the instantiate_template (and possibly even
coerce_template_parms) call site, we could define and pass a new flag
tf_no_level_lowering instead of tf_partial to tell tsubst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #17 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #12)
> > Substituting into seems like a partial
> > substitution to me. If the lambda itself had any template parame
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
This was fixed by r14-8291, indeed it's basically a dup of PR112632. Thanks
for the report!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 112632 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nlebedenko at hotmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
The GCC 13 gimple for the reduced testcase is:
;; Function void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0() (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
<>>) >;
<<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
<<< Unknown tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #11)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> > Started with r14-9938, though I bet before this commit it only accidentally
> > worked.
>
> This failure does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
If we strengthen the comment #6 testcase with
@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ concept tt = ;
template typename U>
concept is_specialization_of = tt;
template concept is_foo = is_specialization_of;
-auto ttt = is
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119574
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
IMHO this shouldn't be considered a P1 as the testcase is quite contrived,
there's an easy workaround, and it (like other lambda in template argument
situations) likely only accidentally worked before.
On t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119501
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #12)
> I'm not sure this is quite right yet. This is on gcc trunk on compiler
> explorer right now, which is g++
> (Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-8fbe7d24373556d40886c7c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 118249, which changed state.
Bug 118249 Summary: Misdiagnosing use of 'this' while doing class member access
in constant evaluation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115046
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119652
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW it works if A is initialized via default-init or copy-list-init:
constinit A a{};// error
constinit A a; // OK
constinit A a = {}; // OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|16.0|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119652
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.0, 15.0
Keywords|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
struct __shared_count {
constexpr __shared_count() {}
~__shared_count();
int _M_pi = 0;
};
struct shared_ptr {
__shared_count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 117700, which changed state.
Bug 117700 Summary: spurious error "non-constant condition" when inside a class
member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118429
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdiez-2006 at rd10 dot de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 118249, which changed state.
Bug 118249 Summary: Misdiagnosing use of 'this' while doing class member access
in constant evaluation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
--- Comment #20 from Patrick Palka ---
Oof, that's a lot of time spent mangling, I wonder if we have an existing PR
for that.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-04
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Yeah, we can easily make both emplaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119620
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #7)
> >> I also added a 'size(t) > 0' check and a check for a type that is not >>
> >> statically sized, where the concept shouldn't become ill-formed either.
> >
>
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
The error
error: template argument 2 is invalid
is a parse error that's ultimately caused by PR104255, I think. If we fix this
parse error the example should hopefully constexpr evaluate OK with our P228
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119383
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|14.3
Summary|[15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119447
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
That approach seems reasonable to me FWIW. Alternatively maybe we could fall
back to using the dependent DECL_CONTEXT (gen_tmpl) as 'ctx' if
tsubst_entering_scope fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119427
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
Created attachment 60941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60941&action=edit
reduced memory-hog testcase
I managed to distill a large chunk of the front end memory-hog into the
attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119525
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119401
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6)
> > We could detect if there was an intervening redeclaration by comparing the
> > source location of the specializat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119401
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
We could detect if there was an intervening redeclaration by comparing the
source location of the specialization vs that of the prevailing template
declaration:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
inde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119401
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119515
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
$ cat testcase.C
template concept C = sizeof(T) != 1;
void f(auto x) requires C && true;
voi
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119486
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110853
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116681
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104255
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
*** Bug 119434 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119434
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119378
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression] Nested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119379
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
Thanks for the reduction, confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119379
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119378
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Created attachment 60835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60835&action=edit
tweaked source file for compatibility
Attached is a tweaked sour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119233
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression]
|t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|13.4
Summary|infinite meta e
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Started with r14-10132 and fixed on trunk by r15-521.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116440
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94061
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
Hmm, I'm not sure CWG 2568 makes this example well-formed? We already do
access checks in the context of the synthesized definition, the problem is that
the synthesized definition (as per comment #2) looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
I recommend your workaround of removing the 'constexpr' specifier when
defaulting a function. A defaulted function is already implicitly constexpr if
its definition qualifies, regardless of whether it's ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Defaulted special member functions seem similarly affected. The following
should be valid in C++23 mode after P2448R2:
struct A { A(); };
struct B {
A a;
constexpr B() = default;
};
:5:13: error: expl
,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
IIUC for defaulted operator<=> that's declared constexpr, GCC deliberately
synthesizes its definition eagerly -- as soon as the class is complete rather
than upon its first actual use -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119239
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119233
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
|1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-10
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced:
auto consteval consteval_id(auto x) { return x; }
int main() {
bool b = consteval_id(__builtin_is_constant_evaluated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119129
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|---
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> > > Fixed, thanks!
> >
> > The fix for LWG 4082 is the missing viewable_ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #9)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> > Fixed, thanks!
>
> The fix for LWG 4082 is the missing viewable_range constraint for one pack
> case.
Where does that con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
|RESOLVED
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Fixed as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100589
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119038
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116440
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119038
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119034
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119038
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119034
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 1937 matches
Mail list logo
