https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
--- Comment #8 from Mark Bourgeault ---
What about something like this?
#if __cplusplus >= 201709L
template>
vector(_InputIterator __first, _InputIterator __last,
const allocator_type& __a = allocator_type())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108423
--- Comment #7 from Martin Uecker ---
* gimplify_type_size does not recurse into pointer, record, or function types
(the later are not mentioned).
* the C FE has code to emit fake TYPE_DECLs for pointer types in
c-decl.cc/grokdeclarator
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes. The attribute has to be there, so it's a Circle bug if it doesn't support
that grammar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we just want to dispatch on iterator concept not iterator category.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
Siddhesh Bhupendra Kukade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||contact at siddheshkukade do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #4 from Siddhesh Bhupendra Kukade ---
Hi, I'm new to bugzilla could you guys please tell me where to see the source
code, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > Yes. The attribute has to be there, so it's a Circle bug if it doesn't
> > support that grammar.
>
> Why can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, if I try the above short testcase on godbolt with C++ (Circle), build
131 still rejects it but Latest accepts, so most likely they have fixed it
already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > Yes. The attribute has to be there, so it's a Circle bug if it doesn't
> > support that grammar.
>
> Why can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For completeness:
template concept C = true;
struct S
{
template requires C
[[nodiscard]] friend constexpr bool bar (const S &, const T &) { return true;
}
};
void
foo ()
{
S s;
bar (s, 0);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108490
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> See PR101782 where you figured out the problem in the grammar :-)
You know, my memory has sometimes smaller and sometimes bigger issues ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
William Westfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||westfw at westfw dot info
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53288
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:208c6678c25bd9a11e6c5911a4c123cb6b7f3d6e
commit r13-5283-g208c6678c25bd9a11e6c5911a4c123cb6b7f3d6e
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80922
--- Comment #10 from pefoley2 at pefoley dot com ---
It does? I wasn't aware of that.
My read of the configure options is that the two options are tangential.
And from a quick skim, I couldn't find anything that made enabling lto suppress
Werror.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e61d43791e0943414d33c96de1dd4bfe5f611e29
commit r13-5284-ge61d43791e0943414d33c96de1dd4bfe5f611e29
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108449
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:106f99406312d7ed47434de53c180718225ffa5e
commit r13-5285-g106f99406312d7ed47434de53c180718225ffa5e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108449
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #15 from felix at breitweiser dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #14)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > > Updated patch submitted:
> > > https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Ledger from comment #15)
> This is a complete minimum reproduction, just to aid Iain Sandoe:
This is well defined code? because I thought operator new has alignment
requirements as defin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
basic.stc.dynamic.allocation/3 seems to be the important part here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
(In reply to felix from comment #15)
He means apinski who submitted a patch, not you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> (In reply to David Ledger from comment #15)
> > This is a complete minimum reproduction, just to aid Iain Sandoe:
>
> This is well defined code? because I tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
28 matches
Mail list logo
