https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113883
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57389&action=edit
patch to fix bug
This is the patch and testcase. I have successfully bootstrapped
and run the Fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113883
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #17 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to gooncreeper from comment #15)
> > May I suggest we just add something like __attribute__((trace)) for the
> > special abort case? Noreturn was added for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
Bug ID: 113884
Summary: GCC rejects valid program saying ambiguous call when
using std::vector
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced to:
```
struct B
{
B(double);
};
struct C
{
C(int);
};
void func(B);
void func(C);
int main() {
func({ 4.2 });
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Reduced to:
> ```
> struct B
> {
> B(double);
> };
>
> struct C
> {
> C(int);
> };
>
>
> void func(B);
> void func(C);
>
> int main() {
> func({ 4.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlame646 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #4 from Jason Liam ---
But which constructor is explicit here? I don't see any explicit ctor here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jason Liam from comment #4)
> But which constructor is explicit here? I don't see any explicit ctor here.
std::vector 's constructor which takes std::size_t is marked as explicit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I know cppreference is not the standard but it is a decent reference to start
with.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/vector
Without the explicit, clang will also reject it as being ambig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113734
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57384|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #7 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> std::vector 's constructor which takes std::size_t is marked as explicit.
But you're missing that the initializer list ctor is preferred/choosen over the
size_t ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jason Liam from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > std::vector 's constructor which takes std::size_t is marked as explicit.
>
> But you're missing that the initializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113874
--- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > The __tls_get_addr call with the default approach potentially needs to solve
> > the same problem, doesn't it?
>
> Isn't __tls_get_addr called via the PLT entry?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113537
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113884
--- Comment #9 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
Does that imply that following program is also invalid? GCC rejects the below
program but msvc accepts.
```
struct A
{
explicit A(int = 10);
A()= default;
};
A
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
