https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55713
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94062
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93001
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69089
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601
Bug 58601 depends on bug 69089, which changed state.
Bug 69089 Summary: C++11: alignas(0) causes an error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69089
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92640
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-11-26 00:00:00 |2020-3-20
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-06 00:00:00 |2020-3-20
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92640
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also in GCC 4.0.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cjdb.ns at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94241
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-20
Status|UNCONFIR
-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#include
template
struct A
{
using value_type = T;
T* allocate(std::size_t n) { return std
gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94244
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In other words, you have failed to meet the requirement that the comparison is
a strict weak ordering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_ordering#Strict_weak_orderings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93983
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Paco Arjonilla from comment #4)
> There is no reason why an extra constructor would affect the semiregularity
> of a type.
That's not true.
A private or deleted constructor that is a better m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94242
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94275
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That symbol has been there (unchanged) for a couple of decades, so I'm not sure
what causes this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 8.3.0, 9.2.0
Known to work|
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
template struct S { };
template requires { typename T::type; } struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rookiezjz at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94336
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The entire server was replaced, with new hardware, new OS, and new versions of
most software.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The "Detailed Bug Information" part of the Advanced Search page is also not
properly populated now. It used to have fields for searching comments, keywords
and more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94351
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94353
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alex at grundis dot de
--- Comment #7
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
We define the comparison operators for reverse_iterator slightly differently to
how the standard
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We also retain the pre-LWG280 homogeneous overloads:
template
inline _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is already being actively discussed, and will probably be a GSoC project.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93904
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I created a pull request for the patch, it's linked to from that issue now.
: ABI
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64-*-linux
This code is miscompiled on aarch64 with -std=c++17, apparently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://godbolt.org/z/BnTEsn is an example with both functions in the same
translation unit, showing the generated code is different for both caller and
callee. If the caller and callee are not in the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94372
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Is the difference maybe related to the empty field that is added for c++17
mode, mentioned in Bug 89358 comment 12?
Is the aarch64 back end not ignoring that field?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That would be consistent with the new field being introduced in gcc-7 (by
r241187).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90794
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nicholas Krause from comment #6)
> I can confirm about building trunk from yesterday that this code no longer
> ICEs on 03. Can someone please close this bug as it no longer blocks C++ VLA
> fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-31
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94414
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right, this has nothing to do with constexpr. The contfilt view is not a
constant expression, so nothing you do with it will be constant evaluated, so
whether it's constexpr is irrelevant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Adding the noexcept-specifier *should* be harmless, but it seems every time we
use one of the is_constructible traits something breaks).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9 Regression] static_cast |[9/10 Regression]
|f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90214
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a ubsan error in GCC when GCC is built with ubsan. It's useless to test
on godbolt, because their GCC builds are not built with ubsan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes this is just a nice-to-have, not critical.
I already made some big improvements, but then some new features made the sizes
jump up again. I'll take another look for low-hanging fruit, but if it doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94429
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-06
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94505
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-06
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94510
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 9.3.0
Known to work|
|1
Known to work||9.3.0
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-07
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is supposed to be supported in C++14 as an extension:
#include
int main() { }
But since r272695 it no longer works:
/home/jwakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can see uses that aren't just "frees the memory", e.g. after fclose and close
any further uses of their argument are probably errors. The close case is
interesting because it's not a pointer argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70790
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.7
Summary|Wrong error m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Started with r154518:
pt.c (determine_specialization): Give helpful error about missing "template<>".
* pt.c (determine_specialization): Give helpful error about missing
"template<>".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #6)
> What do you mean "if an exception is thrown"? If we call std::copy from
> here, then it's because we are taking the memmove path.
The whole point of the bug i
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#include
struct yooj_type { char data[20*1024*1024]; };
int main() {
std::vector v(1);
}
This dies with SIGSEGV due to a stack overflow, because a yooj_type temporary
is
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94545
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94545
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thomas Mercier from comment #2)
> I thought that might be the response. Then why does it compile?
Because the standard requires it to.
> The fact that it does, and produces a result is surpri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94545
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
cppreference does document this, see the second row of the "Return value" table
at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94562
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, it's because that operator isn't implemented yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94581
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2020-04-13
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94581
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92856
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's a different bug, so thanks for filing it separately (PR 94590).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94590
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94565
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91153
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's just a buggy test, the code in the library is fine. I'll fix the test for
GCC 10 if I get a chance, but it's not a priority.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89657
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94049
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93793
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93628
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stephane.zimmermann@trust-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to fail||10.0, 9.1.0
Last reconfirmed
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This should exit cleanly:
#include
struct iterator
{
using value_type = char;
using difference_type = std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The GNU libc has no-op stubs for several pthread functions. I think that is
done so that single threaded programs which don't actually need those functions
can still link to libraries that have references t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||41437
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #14)
> There is also this one from cppcheck:
>
> trunk.git/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/formatter.h:302:40: warning: Redundant
> assignment of '_M_variant._M_iterat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94671
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, this conforms to the standard. See [expr.new]
> An implementation is allowed to omit a call to a replaceable global allocation
> function (17.6.2.1, 17.6.2.2). When it does so, the storage is instead
>
101 - 200 of 21748 matches
Mail list logo
