https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92633
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||db0451 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92633
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
*** Bug 93154 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Marking this PR as a dup of PR92633 too, as with PR93152. Thanks for the
reports.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 92633 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|ICE in expression sfinae|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE
||in expression sfinae
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
The reason we fail to compile the testcase when 'condition' is at class scope
instead of at namespace scope is because in the former case, the template
argument 'c::condition' is a CALL_EXPR to a BASELINK, an
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-04
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed. Started with r11-557.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92103, which changed state.
Bug 92103 Summary: constraints not checked on nested class template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67901
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed. When writing the normal/reverse/move iterator optimizations for the
ranges algos, I wrongly
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93638
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93467
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95678
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94003
Bug 94003 depends on bug 41437, which changed state.
Bug 41437 Summary: No access control for classes in template functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 41437, which changed state.
Bug 41437 Summary: No access control for classes in template functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644
Bug 94644 depends on bug 41437, which changed state.
Bug 41437 Summary: No access control for classes in template functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 47346, which changed state.
Bug 47346 Summary: access control for nested type is ignored in class template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
|RESOLVED
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|dodji at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #20 from Patrick Palka ---
Fixed for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94003
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95678
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
||2020-06-16
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed.
dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-17
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Looking into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95716
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|--- |10.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Looks like this is fully fixed as of GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 68093, which changed state.
Bug 68093 Summary: [concepts] friend function declarations that differ only by
constraints are rejected as redefinitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68093
What|
||2020-06-22
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed.
|1
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Thanks for the report. I'm unable to reproduce this issue against GCC 10.1 or
current trunk. Ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.1.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
|build_over_call |internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94260
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95303
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96113
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Rene Rahn from comment #2)
> Ok, thanks for the explanation. I do understand the issue now and why it
> causes the hard error and not an substitution failure.
> But honestly, given that it works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96132
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-11
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed. [temp.explicit]/11 says:
An explicit instantiation that names a class template specialization is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96164
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-14
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed. Fails on trunk, too.
|1
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96106
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Here's a non-template testcase that ICEs from the same assert in
build_over_call (with -std=c++17, --enable-checking=yes):
struct b {};
b operator|(b, b) { return {}; }
b e, f, g;
using h = decltype(e | f |
||10.1.0, 11.0
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-22
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed. I think PR c++/96197 may be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Testcase added.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94867
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
I see this warning with GCC 10.2 and with trunk when using the flags -O
-std=c++14 -Wnull-dereference as well. Should this be marked as a 9/10/11
regression then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57255
Bug 57255 depends on bug 79504, which changed state.
Bug 79504 Summary: Overload resolution in trailing-return-type ignores
reference qualifier and leads to recursive template instantiation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79504
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Testcase added.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80076
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
This is a dup of PR64194 I think.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 64194 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||okannen at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
Fixed for GCC 11 so far, PR remains open to consider backporting the fix to the
10 branch after a while.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Investigating.
|NEW
Known to fail||10.1.0, 10.2.0, 11.0
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-03
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
--- Comment #3 from
|1
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail||10.1.0, 10.2.0, 11.0
--- Comment #2 from
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed, this is a dup of PR96410 it seems.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 96410 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96410
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC 10.1, 10.2 and 11 fail to accept the following valid testcase.
Satisfaction checking of f's return type placeh
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC 10.1, 10.2 and trunk fail to reject this invalid testcase. The placeholder
type constraint on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94024
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86164
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-06
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96410
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96409
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96164
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96106
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
This appears to be a dup of PR95675.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 95675 ***
,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed. Here's a reduced valid testcase which exhibits a regression:
template
constexpr bool is_bool = false;
template<>
constexpr bool is_bool = true;
template
concept C = requires {
requires (is_bool || ...);
}
|--- |11.0
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-17
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96656
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
|1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Confirmed, not a regression either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Looks like a dup of PR96805?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Is this with -std=c++20 or -std=c++17? From what I can tell r11-2747 adds a
fragment of code that is run only for c++20, and then r11-2748 makes it run for
c++17 as well. And only the first commit was backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96732
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96647
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2020-09-10
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to fold calls to std::move and std::forward
altogether in the frontend.
201 - 300 of 2872 matches
Mail list logo
