https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems simpler and cleaner:
--- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
@@ -5244,6 +5244,10 @@ build_delete (location_t loc, tree otype, tree addr,
tree dtor = CLASSTYPE_DESTRUCTOR (type);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's so crazy, it just might work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
DB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||db0451 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 from DB --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> No, really, that's not how make_unique works. You do not use 'new' with
> make_unique, that's the whole point [...]
D'oh, sorry :-). Not sure what I was thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, really, that's not how make_unique works. You do not use 'new' with
make_unique, that's the whole point, so you would say make_unique() to
create a B. Your motivating examples should be valid C++ of yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #5)
> > Actually, this may be required for 'make_unique(new B)' to warn, since
>
> That's not how make_unique works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #5)
> Actually, this may be required for 'make_unique(new B)' to warn, since
That's not how make_unique works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Matthew Woehlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mw_triad at users dot
sourceforge.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Bug 58876 depends on bug 59304, which changed state.
Bug 59304 Summary: #pragma diagnostic pop after warning fails for options
unspecified in the command-line and disabled by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Bug 58876 depends on bug 61600, which changed state.
Bug 61600 Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic pop leaves warnings enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61600
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I should dig Ian's bug out and have another look. I'm planning to throw
some ideas around on the mailing list ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
At some point Ian Taylor filed a Bugzilla about these issues, I think it's
still open. Not sure what we should do in this area...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
19 matches
Mail list logo
