: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
```
struct __attribute__((visibility("default"))) [[deprecated("a message")]] A1
{
};
struct __attribute__((__deprecated__("a message"
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm trying to use hidden visibility with a library which is already used with
MSVC. It uses exporte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #1 from Stephen ---
www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22AC/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0537r0.html may be related
to this too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #2 from Stephen ---
Also:
stephen@j5:~/dev/src/playground/cpp/build$ nm mylib.g++.o | c++filt
W Templ::getAnotherNum() const
W Templ::getNum() const
W Templ::getAnotherNum() const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #3 from Stephen ---
Also, I tried to follow what I think was indicated in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56328 in that I forward declared
the specialization in the header.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #4 from Stephen ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55347 is also related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
Bug #: 55183
Summary: GCC 4.8 constexpr is too permissive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #5 from Stephen 2012-11-03 10:48:02 UTC
---
Thanks for the information. The issue is indeed about use of reinterpret_cast
in a constexpr method.
The consensus, according to bug 55039, is that this should not be supported.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54086
Bug #: 54086
Summary: GCC should allow constexpr and const together
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
Bug #: 56071
Summary: noexcept with template and private ctor fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #2 from Stephen 2013-01-22 01:44:19 UTC
---
Interestingly, add variadic templates to the mix and it compiles:
class B
{
template friend struct A;
private:
B(int, char) {}
~B() {}
};
template
struct A
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #3 from Stephen 2013-01-22 08:41:02 UTC
---
clang has other issues relating to this. Something to maybe add unit tests for
if they don't exist already:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/27226
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #7 from Stephen 2013-01-22 17:28:14 UTC
---
Thank you!
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 5.2.1-22ubuntu2) 5.2.1 20151010
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 5.2.1-22ubuntu2) 5.2.1 20151010
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
GCC 5.0 generates corrupt CMake binaries currently:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/12392/focus=12420
The cause seems
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Sorry I was not able to reduce this further. Changing almost anything makes the
bug no-longer reproduce:
```
#include
#include
#include
class DataType {
public:
DataType
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
```
#include
class HoldsNonOwning {
public:
void reset(int* nonOwning) {
mNonOwning = nonOwning;
}
int compute(int input)
{
if (!mNonOwning)
{
return -1
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
```
#include
class MyStruct
{
public:
std::vector const& refAccessor();
std::size_t getSize();
};
void emitsWarning()
{
MyStruct params;
auto unusedT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108499
--- Comment #2 from Stephen ---
> There is no way to figure out for the compiler that theSize is not zero
> either.
There is no way for the compiler to figure out that theSize *is* zero.
We have warnings -Wmaybe-uninitialized and -Wuninitiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108499
--- Comment #3 from Stephen ---
False positives with this will just lead to proliferation of -Wno-array-bounds,
which doesn't help.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
```
#include
struct MyThing
{
int d0 = {};
};
void modify(boost::container::small_vector &pp)
{
pp.resize(1);
pp[0].d0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108197
--- Comment #2 from Stephen ---
Richard, are you saying this a bug in the boost code? It's not quite clear to
me from your message. Can you be more specific about what the bug is in that
case?
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: steveire at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm looking for a way to know if GCC autovectorizes some code.
Starting with this testcase which I picked up somewhere:
```
#define N 1
#define NTIMES 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96117
Stephen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
25 matches
Mail list logo
