https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70f33ad677e6350a724b56d4cb766480ed8367fc
commit r16--g70f33ad677e6350a724b56d4cb766480ed8367fc
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #20 from Jason Mer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm seeing a new libstdc++ testsuite failure since r16-3022-gbc42128330c0ea
FAIL: 20_util/variant/102912.cc -std=gnu++20 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 20_util/variant/102912.cc -std=gnu++23 (test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc42128330c0ea70a015b74b655cb8c48b6a8c06
commit r16-3022-gbc42128330c0ea70a015b74b655cb8c48b6a8c06
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
OK, the issue is that we currently don't represent trivial initialization at
all, so the initial placement new has no effect.
Then the trivial destructors are represented by clobbers, but constant
evaluati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #16 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Ah sorry, I was sure I posted the function before:
```
#include
struct S
{
constexpr S() = default;
constexpr S(int x) : s(x) {}
constexpr S(S&& x) : s(x.s) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #14)
Please provide complete testcases, this snippet isn't enough to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #14 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Not sure if this is expected, so noting this here.
On trunk (with r16-2432-gfdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56), if I value
initialize the array (like in inplace_vector), then the code works:
uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61891|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56
commit r16-2432-gfdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #9)
> I remember that LWG3436 was discussed in core in Varna
> (https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21varna/CoreWorkingGroup#LWG3436) and the
> current wording is resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #10 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
If the object pointed by __location is not transparently replaceable, for
example if I would create an object inside std::byte array that is an member,
then does std::launder(__location) produce pointer t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #9 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
I remember that LWG3436 was discussed in core in Varna
(https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21varna/CoreWorkingGroup#LWG3436) and the
current wording is result from there.
I was always suspicious about creat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #7 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Or in other words, I believe my example is equivalent to implementation of
optional,
where we have:
union {
T val;
};
And then call:
new(static_cast(addressof(val))) T(...);
It is just version were T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #6 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
I believed that `_member` being active after new should directly fall from the
definition of active member in https://eel.is/c++draft/class.union#general-2:
> In a union, a non-static data member is active
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
The intent of the patch was to support
new (&union_.member) T
syntax like
union_.member = T()
for setting the active member, as in
https://eel.is/c++draft/class.union#general-example-3
but adding the li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Hi, the original example works, but when I start to add library fluff, I get
the same error. I mean cases like:
// passing address to actual member
new(&arr) T[3];
new(std::addressof(arr)) T[3]; // Disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 61891
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61891&action=edit
fix
Let me know how this works for you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
That is indeed very surprising, as it would mean that if I have:
```
struct S {
union {
int x;
};
};
constexpr S test()
{
S s;
new(&s.x) int;
is_active_member(s.x); // this is false
}
```
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
21 matches
Mail list logo
