https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #34 from Toni Neubert ---
Thank you both! Now everything works. :)
I'll keep that in mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #32 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 8 20:31:20 2020
New Revision: 280018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369 - constexpr destructor and member initializer.
Prev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Toni Neubert from comment #28)
> I have another test case which fails. (Maybe more..., I am sorry).
No need to be sorry, your input is very valuable.
Anyway, for the #c28 testcase (using
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 7 07:13:50 2020
New Revision: 279943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279943&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369
* constexpr.c (struct constexpr_global_ctx):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #28 from Toni Neubert ---
Thank you very much again for your fast help. Your patch works for this test
case.
I have another test case which fails. (Maybe more..., I am sorry).
//main.cpp: in ‘constexpr’ expansion of ‘test3()’
//main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47590&action=edit
gcc10-pr91369-2.patch
Untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #25 from Toni Neubert ---
I get: "deallocation of already deallocated storage" for test2() but compiling
just test1() or test2() is just fine.
struct a {
constexpr a(int* i) : i{i} {
}
constexpr ~a() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #24 from Toni Neubert ---
Great thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 19:27:47 2019
New Revision: 278945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369
* constexpr.c (struct constexpr_global_ctx):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lutztonineubert at gmail dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 1 23:26:17 2019
New Revision: 277732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277732&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369 - Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
* cp-tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 30 21:55:12 2019
New Revision: 277649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369 - Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
* constex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 23 17:42:11 2019
New Revision: 277342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369 Implement P0784R7 changes to allocation and construction
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so do I need to somehow mark the CALL_EXPR created from new/delete lowering
and only treat calls to global replaceable allocator/deallocator functions
specially if they either have this flag or are in al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'll commit a patch to add std::construct_at today or tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not valid, because operator new is not a constexpr function.
You have to use a new-expression (that resolves to one of the standard operator
new allocation functions), or std::allocator::allocate,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another question is whether:
constexpr int
bar ()
{
auto a = static_cast (::operator new (sizeof (int)));
*a = 1;
*a = *a + 2;
int r = *a;
::operator delete (a);
return r;
}
constexpr auto p = b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Well, not fully. The paper has additions of constexpr keywords on the
> library side, but more importantly, we'll probably need some hacks in the
> compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 5 07:38:21 2019
New Revision: 276622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369 - Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
c-family/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46956|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46946|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> So, is the [class.dtor]/9 note just incorrect and should be removed, or
> clarified somehow? I believe it shouldn't affect what actually is a literal
> type or n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Still need to add further testcase coverage and finish cookie support, but I
ran into something that looks like a bug in the C++ standard.
[dcl.constexpr]/3 says:
if the function is a constructor or destruct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46946&action=edit
gcc10-pr91369.patch
Current WIP patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> > > should we mark them some way and either allow the first
> > > cxx_fold_indirect_ref or the above code to change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> > should we mark them some way and either allow the first
> > cxx_fold_indirect_ref or the above code to change their type the first time
> > they are stored?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So, first of all, is it a good idea to represent the HEAP variables through
> artifical VAR_DECLs?
That makes sense to me.
> I guess in the outermost constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
35 matches
Mail list logo
