https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Václav Zeman from comment #13)
> This bug appears to be affecting 4.7.x series as well. Is there a chance to
> get this fixed for 4.7 as well?
No, the 4.7 branch is closed and there will be n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Václav Zeman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vhaisman at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||perso...@e-maxx.ru
--- Comment #12 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 13 16:05:01 2014
New Revision: 210381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60367
* call.c (convert_default_arg): Remove special handli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 10 21:06:59 2014
New Revision: 208465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60367
* call.c (convert_default_arg): Remove special handling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||victor.robertson.iv at gmail
dot c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #5 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com ---
The following is a side-by-side diff of the disassembly of the incorrect
version vs. a correct version (defaulting the parameter with = foo{}). The
object foo has a single member of type char ini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #4 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com ---
The problem only seems to occur when using the pattern "= {}" to default the
parameter; "= foo{}" and "= foo()" don't seem to provoke the differing
addresses.
I have confirmed that member data s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #3 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com ---
Adding a destructor didn't fix it for me - though it was destroyed for the same
address as the constructed object.
constructed foo @ 0x7fffa012e5ef
default argument is at 0x7fffa012e5d0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Possibly the same issue as Bug 59713
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #1 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com ---
...having realised that this might look like I just don't grok move
construction I expanded my test - adding copy & move constructors & assignment
operators to foo and re-running the test still g
16 matches
Mail list logo
