https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103177
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102980
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104565
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davide.gadioli at polimi dot it
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54319
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aschepler at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100557
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced:
template _Tp declval();
struct print_tag_;
bool tag_invoke(print_tag_, auto);
bool tag_invoke(print_tag_, auto obj) requires requires { *obj; };
template
auto try_tag_invoke() noexcept(tag_inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88252
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
For the record, the full rejects-valid testcase is:
// #g.1: rvalue reference function parameter
constexpr bool g(int&&) { return true; }
// #g.2: const lvalue reference function parameter
constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105006
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105035
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105035
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Another option is to make sure we don't call
> > warn_duplicated_cond_add_or_warn
> > when processing_template_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Some context: consider the simplified/extended C++20 testcase (the consteval-if
seems to be a red herring):
consteval int foo(int x) { return x; }
template
void bar(int x)
{
constexpr int y = 0;
foo(8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
The reason that the two tests in constexpr-if2.C don't fail with -fchecking=2
after r12-7264 seems to be a latent bug. The error comes from the call to
fold_non_dependent_expr in build_non_dependent_expr (w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> This one is valid, but before your r12-7264 was incorrectly rejected because
> 8 * baz (0) etc. is wrapped in NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR,
> potential_constant_expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101906
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW one workaround is to use a class template instead of an alias template,
e.g.
-template using voidify = void;
+template struct voidify {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> > IIUC as long as NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR doesn't appear inside a non-dependent
> > consteval call then we'll currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105047
Bug ID: 105047
Summary: invalid non-dependent call to non-static member of the
current instantiation not rejected ahead of time
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103455
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103455
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105067
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10/11 Regression] requires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105067
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #17 from Patrick Palka ---
This won't be implemented in time for GCC 12, sadly.
FWIW a class-scope explicit specialization should in most cases be equivalent
to an appropriately constrained partial specialization. So as a workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105067
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #5)
> It still seems to be ICE.
> https://godbolt.org/z/YjazY4ajv
I only see ordinary errors, no ICEs:
:3:9: error: concept 'C' has multiple template parameter lists
3 | c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71637
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101914
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91911
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||accounts at prantare dot xyz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrei.popa105 at yahoo dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW one workaround could be to consistently use 'T' or 'const T&' as the first
function parameter for both functions.
Another workaround could be to constrain the second overload with
'(!std::is_signed::va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105119
Bug ID: 105119
Summary: the division in x / (1 << y) is optimized away when x
has unsigned type, but not when it's signed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105174
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105178
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
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=105143
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67898
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Related rejects-valid C++11 testcase:
template struct A;
template using B = A;
using type = A;
using type = B;// incorrectly resolves to A
// instead of A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104594
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Here's a testcase which illustrates that the fix must happen during
normalization, not during satisfaction, since after normalization we don't know
which concepts we looked through to yield the given atom:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104594
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104594
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
N.B. coerce_template_parms sometimes does encode the implicit conversion for a
dependent NTTP argument, but only for sake of specialization matching (in light
of 'auto' template parms IIUC), the IMPLICIT_CON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104594
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> N.B. coerce_template_parms sometimes does encode the implicit conversion for
> a dependent NTTP argument, but only for sake of specialization matching (in
> ligh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105191
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59716
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Hmm, this PR is essentially a dup of PR88580 but I don't think it's a 10/11
regression: between r8-2715 and r10-3735 it seems we just went from incorrectly
rejecting the testcase (the behavior before r8-2715)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104859
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99893
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105220
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105223
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105223
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
The implicitly declared ServiceReference::operator= members lack a
TEMPLATE_INFO, but filter_memfn_lookup expects it (along with all other
non-template member functions from the instantiated class) to have o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105223
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW, the problematic hunk from r12-7714 appears to be:
--- a/gcc/cp/class.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/class.cc
...
@@ -7700,14 +7723,17 @@ finish_struct (tree t, tree attributes)
lookup not to fail or recurse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105233
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 52791 [details]
> gcc12-pr105233.patch
>
> Untested patch that makes alignas and aligned attribute argument manifestly
> constant evaluated e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103105
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Known to fail|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103955
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103706
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103105
Bug 103105 depends on bug 103706, which changed state.
Bug 103706 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: accessed elt 1 of
'tree_vec' with 0 elts in hash, at cp/constraint.cc:2503
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103706
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103341
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101532
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103105
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> But not fixed on gcc-11 by the r11-8715 backport for PR100838, suggesting
> there was an earlier change on trunk that affects it.
Perhaps that's because of (f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> If one defines instead say bool operator<(const foo, const foo);
> then the built-in candidate isn't considered because of
> https://eel.is/c++draft/over.match.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104858
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0, 12.0
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Patrick, I suggest we go with Jakub's suggestion in comment 4, but PTAL.
LGTM, it seems to be the simplest workaround. I also tried replacing the NSDMI
but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > > Patrick, I suggest we go with Jakub's suggestion in comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105322
Bug ID: 105322
Summary: [modules] ICE with constexpr object of local class
type from another function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105322
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0, 12.0
--- Comment #1 from Patric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #11)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> >
> > Interestingly that doesn't seem to make a difference. What seems to matter
> > is whether the constexpr fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86193
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
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=105304
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105386
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE on |[11 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105386
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Tuple in |[11 Regression] Tuple in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105398
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105398
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94624
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94376
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105386
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105425
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105425
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105436
Bug ID: 105436
Summary: parse error with >= operator expression in template
argument list in C++14 mode since r13-40
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106366
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363
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 96363, which changed state.
Bug 96363 Summary: bogus error with multiple constrained partial specialization
forward declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105758
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
601 - 700 of 2659 matches
Mail list logo
