https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 21 22:03:07 2019
New Revision: 269861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71446
* call.c (filed_in_pset): Change pset from h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 4 18:57:13 2019
New Revision: 269371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71446
* call.c (field_in_pset): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45872
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45872&action=edit
gcc9-pr71446-2.patch
Untested patch for the build_aggr_conv stuff.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 2 08:06:57 2019
New Revision: 269340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71446
* cp-tree.h (CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DESIGNATED_INIT)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45863&action=edit
gcc9-pr71446.patch
That would be this (untested except for make check-c++all).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I'm afraid I need to give up on the build_aggr_conv+desig11.C part of the
above patch, I really don't understand what C++ says that should be done.
I've tried to at least test the remaining part of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45856|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45856&action=edit
WIP
For that test the following helps, but guess I'm still not handling anonymous
aggregates right there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#c2 with it still fails though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So like (untested):
--- gcc/call.c.jj 2019-02-28 08:14:58.251562934 +0100
+++ gcc/call.c 2019-02-28 17:04:49.697357298 +0100
@@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ build_list_conv (tree type, tree ctor, i
conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> So, shall we never try ck_list conversion for CONSTRUCTORs with any
> designators (while for -std=c++2a we'll complain if there is a mix of
> designated initiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, shall we never try ck_list conversion for CONSTRUCTORs with any designators
(while for -std=c++2a we'll complain if there is a mix of designated
initializer clauses and non-designated initializ clauses, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||st at quanttec dot com
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC 4.7 through 7.x emit:
sorry, unimplemented: non-trivial designated initializers not supported
here (and 4.6 and earlier didn't support C++11 enough to grok it).
That said, you're right, the skipping is im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Well, before C++2a it is an extension, so outside of the C++ standard, and
> GCC has been implementing it as not allowing to skip any fields.
Not exactly. Outs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #4 from Roman Perepelitsa ---
Please take a look at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446#c1.
This code compiles. Given that it contains `{.value = 0}`, one would reasonably
expect that it creates an instance of a struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #1 from Roman Perepelitsa ---
The same bug can lead to incorrect behaviour at run time.
#include
#include
struct S {
int value;
};
void F(S) { puts("right"); }
void F(std::initializer_list) { puts("wrong"); }
i
22 matches
Mail list logo
