https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #15 from Brooks Moses ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
[...]
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist86.C (main): Initialize i.
[...]
Aha ... yes, that would do it. And, indeed, I can confirm that this fixes the
failures I wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 4 08:23:28 2014
New Revision: 212289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61382
Backport from mainline
2014-06-05 Andreas Schwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> I'm seeing:
> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist86.C -std=c++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist86.C -std=c++1y execution test
> on 4.9 branch (but not on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #11 from Brooks Moses ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> Thanks. Does removing "PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED &&" from the cp_gimplify_expr
> change fix it?
Nope -- I just gave it a try, and it doesn't seem to change things. S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #9)
> FWIW, the new initlist86.C test that this adds is failing on the
> google/gcc-4_9 branch on powerpc64le and aarch64, though it passes on
> x86_64. I haven't yet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Brooks Moses changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 30 14:25:21 2014
New Revision: 212150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1030
PR c++/51253
PR c++/61382
* cp-tree.h (CALL_EXPR_L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Steinmetz ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> Fixed on trunk for now.
Ohh great. Thank You!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 4 15:51:01 2014
New Revision: 211235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/51253
PR c++/61382
gcc/
* gimplify.c (gimplify_arg): Non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #4 from Thibaut LUTZ ---
You're right, my bad. Thanks for correcting me.
The exact quote is
> Within the initializer-list of a braced-init-list, the initializer-clauses,
> including any that result from pack expansions, are evaluat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thibaut LUTZ from comment #2)
> @Jonathan: you might be referring to 56774. 59716 was a similar issue.
They don't look related. I meant PR 51253
> However I think this case is definitely NOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Thibaut LUTZ changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thibaut.lutz at googlemail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's definitely a bug ... I think there's an existing PR about it.
16 matches
Mail list logo
