https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8 Regression] by-ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com
Last reconfirmed
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
Depends on||67184
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Much like PR 90909, this was introduced by Paolo's patch for PR 671
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95319
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Interesting, the standard doesn't actually seem to specify anything about
casting a function pointer to pointer to void, which is explicitly not an
object pointer under http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95319
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Changed by r260150.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94926
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95466
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95466
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95232
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95232
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95175
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 92695, which changed state.
Bug 92695 Summary: P1064R0 - virtual constexpr fails if object taken from array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Templates
|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
This simplified testcase has been broken a lot longer (back to GCC 8, at
least); my patch just extended the breakage to templates that already affected
non-templates. The issue is that cloning the constructo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Does the aarch64 port expect __Float32x4_t type to be considered equivalent to
the GNU vector type or not? If so, why use build_distinct_type_copy over
build_variant_type_copy? If not, they might want to se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > But if they mangle differently, then structural_comptypes shouldn't treat
> > them as same types.
Definite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Dunno, perhaps for backporting it could be done in template_args_equal
> instead?
For backporting we could treat them as different only if
comparing_specializati
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 93976, which changed state.
Bug 93976 Summary: Implement P2082R1, Fixing CTAD for aggregates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93976
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95672
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|10.2.1
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Version|10.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90254
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ice |[8/9/10 Regression] ice on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE: |[9/10 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merril
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill ---
This issue came up in the GCC/LLVM compatibility discussion today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guilherme at amadio dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85648
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91427, which changed state.
Bug 91427 Summary: Implement P1825R0, Merged wording for P0527R1 and P1155R3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91427
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91427
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83434
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 21 20:19:28 2019
New Revision: 277270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83434 - typeinfo for noexcept function lacks noexcept information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88466
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: asutton at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 67491
Target Milestone: ---
For this testcase we should explain why the concept-check is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Constraint normalization|[concepts] hard error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> On further thought, I'm not sure normalizing the dependent form is really
> necessary, either here or for nested-requirements, as long as we get the
> proper SFIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47136
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47136&action=edit
patch for the simple case
This untested patch fixes my testcase and Jon's, though not the more complex
case. N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
It would also be helpful to explain for
static_assert (!Int);
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> But for a constraint with template arguments like, say, same_as, we do,
> as we can can run into the same situation as with non-nested requirements:
...excep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 31 02:01:16 2019
New Revision: 277654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277654&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92268 - hard error satisfying return-type-requirement
Prev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92268, which changed state.
Bug 92268 Summary: [concepts] hard error satisfying return-type-requirement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84810
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 31 02:31:48 2019
New Revision: 277655
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277655&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84810 - constraints on lambdas
Attached is a patch that adds parsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Sutton from comment #2)
> This is tricky because the condition reduces to true/false before the static
> assertion evaluates it. We could introduce a new binary expression that
> stores th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47153&action=edit
sketch of late evaulation
something like this. not continuing to work on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92102, which changed state.
Bug 92102 Summary: identical requires-expression not subsumed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92102
What|Removed |Added
-
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
In C++20, atomic constraints are only equivalent if they come from the same
lexical tokens. So yes, you need to add a concept.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 4 23:24:25 2019
New Revision: 277801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91979 - mangling nullptr expression
2019-11-04 Kamlesh Ku
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 5 11:46:54 2019
New Revision: 277825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88075 - Don't require 'bool' in a concept definition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 5 23:53:53 2019
New Revision: 277864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix conversions for built-in operator overloading candidates.
While worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 88339, which changed state.
Bug 88339 Summary: Implement P0515R3, C++20 three-way comparison operator
support .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
What|Removed |Added
--
||2019-11-06
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92150
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 7 00:31:52 2019
New Revision: 277901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92150 - partial specialization with class NTTP.
Here unify
101 - 200 of 8790 matches
Mail list logo
