https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77907
Bug ID: 77907
Summary: Add "const" to argument of constexpr constructor
causes the object to be left in unconstructed state
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77907
--- Comment #1 from Freddie Chopin ---
Maybe it is important to add, that it doesn't matter whether
SomeClass::someFunction() is const or not - it behaves identically in both
cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817
Marc Mutz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.mutz at kdab dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77907
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,|
|arm-none-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77908
Bug ID: 77908
Summary: Array operation fails for arrays with "long" indices
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77908
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77907
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Here's a runnable testcase:
struct SomeClass {
int someFunction() { return 1; }
};
struct SomeFunctor {
using MemberFunction = int (SomeClass::*)();
constexpr explicit SomeFunctor(const MemberF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77908
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The diff between the original dump with -m32 and -m64 gives
--- pr77908.f90.003t.original 2016-10-09 11:54:56.0 +0200
+++ pr77908.f90_64.003t.original2016-10-09 11:53:59.0 +0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77901
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Oct 9 11:18:53 2016
New Revision: 240899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/77901
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38592
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
We still do the comparison, although with memcmp now.
More interesting question is if we could/should do
forward propagation of values in the front end,
or if this is something that the middle-end should,
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77821
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
Nah, the whole issue's just some sort of build-system artifact, namely,
switching to cmake:
$ du ufo*cmake*
2076ufo-gcc4.9-lto-cmake
2140ufo-gcc4.9-nonlto-cmake
2064ufo-gcc7-lto-cmake
2124ufo-gcc7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77909
Bug ID: 77909
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough: accept more comment variants
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
Bug ID: 77910
Summary: [7 Regression] go: open zversion.go: no such file or
directory
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
Bug ID: 77911
Summary: Comparing function pointers in a constexpr function
can produce an error.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
--- Comment #1 from Dr Hilbert Swan ---
Created attachment 39777
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39777&action=edit
Version that compiles.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77896
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ryan Johnson from comment #4)
>puts("\nWorks ok-ish:");
>Jekyl* x = new Jekyl;
>whatami(x);
>puts("\nJekyl?");
>delete x;
I think this would be OK if it did "delete (AlterE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67585
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Sun Oct 9 18:05:56 2016
New Revision: 240902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 67585 Handle EINTR
Many POSIX systems have the bad habit of not restart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67585
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jb at gcc dot g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Works for me.
Do you have a copy of the gc toolchain on your computer? Is the environment
variable GOROOT set?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912
Bug ID: 77912
Summary: class template deduction fails in template functions
and generic lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|class template deduction|[C++17 feature] class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cam888eron at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #1)
> Do you have a copy of the gc toolchain on your computer?
No.
> Is the environment variable GOROOT set?
No.
% env | grep GO
GOPATH=/var/tmp/go
%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77913
Bug ID: 77913
Summary: error building bits/locale_conv.h: expected
primary-expression before ',' token
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77913
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Who is defining __out ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77913
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Who is defining __out ?
Which you can find out by -dD (or -g3). I suspect this is not a bug in
libstdc++ but the headers of the program that is being compiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77913
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is a bug in libgtop11dotnet:
>
>
> ./cardmod.h:#define __out
> ./cardmod.h:#define __out_bcount_part_opt(x, y)
> ./cardmod.h:#define __out_bcount(x)
> ./ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 39779
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39779&action=edit
strace bad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 39778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39778&action=edit
strace good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77890
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
*** Bug 77912 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
Bug ID: 77914
Summary: Wrong lambda definition accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
36 matches
Mail list logo
