https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92272
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|jwakely at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92272
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 30 15:48:11 2019
New Revision: 277629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Apply C++20 changes to various iterator types
This ensures that __normal
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: *-w64-mingw32
Using mingw-w64 the following program gives two warnings. On other target
: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As an extension G++ allows zero-length arrays, but doesn't allow a length of
zero to be de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, and I removed __cpp_lib_constexpr from today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #2)
> I think we're done.
> The __cpp_lib_constexpr may not do anything or may not be in the newest
> drafts anymore. We should probably kill it. I was very confused as peop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kenman Tsang from comment #6)
> Sorry for bring this topic back again.
That's OK, the bug is still open.
> But I think there are some
> inconsistancy with the std::is_pod and the error messag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes those tests exercise some weird, contrived corner cases. I messed some up
and will fix them (and remove my workaround for this bug - thanks!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Antonio Di Monaco from comment #2)
> Well, I tried, but nothing changes.
>
> assert(a.insert(std::make_pair< const int, int >(1, 1)).second);
> assert(a.insert(std::make_pair< const int, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92298
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 92298 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 92299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Luca Rocca from comment #2)
> Consider also for comparison the approach of GCC up to gcc-6.4.0,
> reading this comment from the corresponding file gcc-6.4.0/gcc/match.pd:
>
> /* Make sure to p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 31 13:17:48 2019
New Revision: 277667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove PR 92268 workaround and fix new test failures
With the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yeah, I already noticed that :-)
I have some more changes locally too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another idea would be to add a new flag which chooses between brief and verbose
explanations of satisfaction failure during overload resolution. By default
just say that an overload isn't viable because typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I believe GCC is right, as unhelpful as that might seem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I probably missed a later fix that got made to the trunk version of the test.
I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
All compilers agree, because it's what the standard says should happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Mick P. from comment #5)
> Try Visual Studio's.
I did, and it doesn't compile:
https://godbolt.org/z/Q54kFs
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm not sure when this regression started, I'll check later.
/home/jwakely/src/gcc/libstdc++-
||2019-11-05
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
After fixing that, there's still a problem, as isn't
installed for freestanding:
In file included from
/home/jwakely/gcc/freestanding/include/c++/10.0.0/version:35,
from :1:
/home/jwakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Can you please stop changing the status to FIXED. That means a bug in GCC was
fixed. Since nothing in GCC changed, nothing has been fixed.
I think all compilers are trying to convert the object to std::pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
class Empty {};
bool is_same(Empty a, Empty b)
{
__builtin_printf("%p\n%p\n", &a, &b);
void* v[] = { &a, &b };
return v[0] == v[1];
}
int main() {
Empty a, b;
if (is_same(a, b))
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92400
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is another dup of PR 85577, and GCC is doing what CWG DR 2137
says.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92393
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another dup of PR 63707 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91499
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another dup of PR 63707 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92403
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
constexpr auto
cmp()
{
[[gnu::vector_size(4)]] int i = { };
return i <=> i;
}
static_assert( cmp() );
With recent trunk and -std=gnu+2
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This crashes when compiled with -std=gnu++2a:
#include
template
concept op_cmp = requires(_Tp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92431
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Slightly further reduced:
#include
constexpr std::weak_ordering
cmp(int e, int f)
{
return e <=> f;
}
auto o = cmp(1, 2);
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 67491
Target Milestone: ---
// header, compile with g++ -std=gnu++2a -c
template concept C = sizeof(T) > 1;
template struct S { };
templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You're right, sorry for not checking 9 and 10 properly. I also see it working
again after r263875.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||src at andyf dot de
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92490
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92484
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #0)
> Is there any official way to build gcc with another C++ standard by default
> ? And is in-tree build of libs like gmp/mpfr/mpc/isl still supported or
> offici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92496
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92495
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92496
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Slightly reduced:
template
struct A {};
struct B {
constexpr auto operator<=>(const B&) const = default;
int value;
};
A t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92431
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 13 16:26:18 2019
New Revision: 278149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libsupc++: Implement comparison algorithms for C++20
This is incomplete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@nicholas-schwab.de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92509
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sylvain Korzennik from comment #11)
> I'll try rebuilding it w/ ./configure
> --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Or let GCC build them for you, by putting their sources in the GCC source tree,
as re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92530
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is still present on gcc-8-branch and gcc-9-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92519
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at motec dot com.au
--- Commen
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
namespace std
{
struct stop_token { };
template
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92536
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 88075, which changed state.
Bug 88075 Summary: [feature-request] allow "concept" instead of "concept bool"
with -fconcepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 67491
Target Milestone: ---
template struct A
{
static constexpr bool value = true;
explicit operator bool
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
{
S(T, T) { }
};
char* begin();
char* end();
void
test01()
{
S s(begin(). end
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For :
: | g++ -std=c++11 -P -E -x c++ - -include array | wc -l
5141
: | g++ -std=c++14 -P -E -x c++ - -include array | wc -l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Currently includes the whole of , but we might be able to avoid
that so that is more lightweight:
: | g++ -std=c++2a -P -E -x c++ - -include array | wc -l
7729
: | g++ -std=c++2a -P -E -x c++ - -include
alid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#include
struct X
{
friend std::strong_ordering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92551
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC accepts this as a declaration followed by a definition, but it should be
two definitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92576
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92576
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Nov 19 09:34:59 2019
New Revision: 278440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++: Fix declarations of variable templates
This code is invalid a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92577
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Your quotes from the standard are about operator new, not about allocators.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89931
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-03-28 00:00:00 |2019-11-19
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.kenzel at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92579
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paultargosz86 at googlemail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92580
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR 85689 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-07-03 00:00:00 |2019-11-19
--- Comment #6 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 67491
Target Milestone: ---
template // oops, should be std::integral
struct ref_view
{
ref_view(T) { }
};
ref_view r{1};
This crashes when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92593
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58875
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> At least as far as this particular testcase goes, there's a warning from
> -Wuninitialized at least... if you initialize parentValue to EP_VAL2 like I
> think y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63181
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> This one should be moved to its own separate option per bug 7651
Indeed it should, and if we add -Wdangling-field then that would be the ideal
option to move i
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2019-11-21
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can reproduce it, but I think this has to be a glibc problem. Libstdc++
simply calls clock_gettime(3), and both that and time(3) come from glibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see the same result when using clock_gettime directly instead of
system_clock::now()
#include
#include
#include
#include
void dumpNow() {
struct timespec ts;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I can reproduce it, but I think this has to be a glibc problem. Libstdc++
> simply calls clock_gettime(3), and both that and time(3) come from glibc.
Correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
gettimeofday agrees with clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME):
void dumpNow() {
struct timespec ts;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
auto const now = time(nullptr);
struct timeval tv;
gettimeofday(&t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ but I think they prefer bugs to be reported to
distros unless you're actually using the upstream kernel. So report it to
Ubuntu (but mention it's also seen in Fedora).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22395
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> Note that clang goes even farther in splitting up -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor
> into different warnings based on whether the dtor is abstract or not:
> https://cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92267
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92267
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Nov 22 12:36:18 2019
New Revision: 278614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278614&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92267 fix ABI change in deque iterators
Defaulting the copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92627
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1101 - 1200 of 18422 matches
Mail list logo
