http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56480
Bug #: 56480
Summary: Explicit specialization in a namespace enclosing the
specialized template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56480
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2013-03-05
04:30:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this is
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#374
Ah, I see. The code is accepted if a declaration (without definit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56886
Bug #: 56886
Summary: [4.9 regression] undesirable instantiation of class
template default argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Bug #: 56901
Summary: [4.9 regression] lambda with implicit capture by
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge 2013-04-10
08:30:23 UTC ---
Tested with r197663.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56915
Bug #: 56915
Summary: [4.9 regression] ICE in
symtab_add_to_same_comdat_group, at symtab.c:383
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #16 from Nathan Ridge 2013-04-12
07:22:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > Here is a related example that still fails to compile:
>
> Fixed.
It still fails if we make S a template:
te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56915
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2013-04-12
07:40:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I am not an expert of C++11, but I am trying to help you with this ICE. Before
> I jump into the compiler to find the bugs, I guess you probably made s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56943
Bug #: 56943
Summary: Incorrect two-phase name lookup for operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56943
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54318
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.0 |4.7.3
--- Comment #1 from Nathan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53846
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge 2013-05-02
21:12:27 UTC ---
This seems to be fixed in the 4.8.0 release. Close?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54237
Bug #: 54237
Summary: [C++11] Make more tuple-related functions constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54248
Bug #: 54248
Summary: Comment in standard library header talks about boost
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54310
Bug #: 54310
Summary: Order of operations during overload resolution
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54311
Bug #: 54311
Summary: Info about default template arguments in instantiation
backtrace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54318
Bug #: 54318
Summary: [C++11] Bogus "template instantiation depth exceeds
maximum" error + segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54377
Bug #: 54377
Summary: Consider default arguments in "wrong number of
template arguments" diagnostic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
Bug #: 54864
Summary: Decltype in nested class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-07
04:31:24 UTC ---
Clang deemed this issue important enough to warrant a new entry ("Incomplete
retrn types", under "Declared type of an expression") in their C++11 status
page.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-07
04:32:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Clang deemed this issue important enough to warrant a new entry ("Incomplete
> retrn types", under "Declared type of an expression") in their C++11 sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47184
Summary: gcc interprets C++0x initialization construct as
function declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47335
Summary: "sorry, unimplemented: mangling overload"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47336
Summary: ICE: "Error reporting routines re-entered"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53184
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Because then the anonymous class has the name "Foo" for linkage purposes,
> > and
> > has external linkage. When Foo referes to the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54310
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge ---
Richard Smith has suggested that GCC is actually allowed not to instantiate
'meta' as per [temp.inst]/p6:
"If the overload resolution process can determine the correct function to call
without instantiating a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge ---
Since gcc and clang can't both be right, I filed
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16828 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50437
Bug #: 50437
Summary: [C++0x] [4.7 regression] ICE for trivial use of lambda
in template function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53151
Bug #: 53151
Summary: [C++11] Incorrect type deduction in conditional
expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53152
Bug #: 53152
Summary: In "no match for operatorXX" error message, mention
the types of the arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158
Bug #: 53158
Summary: [C++11] Bogus error in loop condition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53286
Bug #: 53286
Summary: [mingw] improve "CreateProcess: No such file or
directory" error message
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53289
Bug #: 53289
Summary: unnecessary repetition of caret diagnostics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53336
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53415
Bug #: 53415
Summary: problematic error message for ambiguity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53543
Bug #: 53543
Summary: [unordered_map] conflict with __is_convertible clang
intrinsic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54060
Bug #: 54060
Summary: [C++11] Lambda expression's type should not be in an
anonymous namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54060
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2012-07-31
20:21:51 UTC ---
What is the purpose of warning about the use of an anonymous type in this
context?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
Bug #: 52145
Summary: [C++11] zero-valued integer constant expression should
prefer conversion to pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2012-02-27
16:48:41 UTC ---
*Ping*
Could this please be fixed for 4.7?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Bug #: 52748
Summary: [C++11] N3276 changes to decltype
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52824
Bug #: 52824
Summary: [C++11] expanding variadic template arguments into
non-variadic template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
GCC accepts the following code without any errors:
struct A
{
struct nested;
};
struct B : public A {};
struct B::nested {};
I believe that this code is invalid according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #32 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #31)
> Or to put it another way, this bug only affects MinGW users, is blocked by a
> limitation in MinGW, and noone from MinGW has offered to do anything about
> it,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51277
Bug #: 51277
Summary: Feature request: C++ diagnostic for ambiguous
overloads
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51277
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2011-11-23
16:30:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > - in the first case, the location of the using-declaration or using-
> >directive (if there are several, any one of them sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Bug #: 51852
Summary: [regression] [c++11] tree check: expected tree_list,
have HßèMÕþÿøtxøtsø
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-14
07:11:43 UTC ---
Here is stack trace of cc1plus at the point where it prints garbage:
#0 tree_check_failed (node=0x7fffdc568b40, file=0xf8f214
"../../src/gcc/cp/pt.c", line=1687, function=0xf94cd0
"eq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-14
07:55:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> >The message "Unhandled dwarf expression opcode 0xf3" stands out
> That just means the version of gdb you are using does not understand the
> dwarf2
> exten
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-14
08:06:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> you could also try building with --enable-checking=valgrind
When I try to build gcc with --enable-checking=valgrind, I get the following
error:
--13242-- Wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-14
08:39:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26322
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26322
valgrind output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-14
08:40:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > you could also try building with --enable-checking=valgrind
>
> When I try to build gcc with --enable-checking=valgrind, I get t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-16
16:12:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > >The message "Unhandled dwarf expression opcode 0xf3" stands out
> > > That just means the versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-26
21:48:09 UTC ---
I bisected the SVN history between the snapshot that worked and the snapshot
that gave the error - it appears at r182668.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
05:37:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> One thing to do is to use --param ggc-min-expand=1 --param ggc-min-heapsize=1
> and try to reduce it from there. And then when you get down use 0's instead
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #15 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
06:29:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > One thing to do is to use --param ggc-min-expand=1 --param
> > ggc-min-heapsize=1
> > and try to reduce it from there. And t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
07:30:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> make check-g++-strict-gc finds failures on several variadic template tests,
> including variadic99.C, so I don't think reducing your testcase is necessary.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Bug #: 52015
Summary: std::to_string does not work under MinGW
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #21 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
19:44:54 UTC ---
The testcase and my original program now compile successfully. Thanks!
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In the following code:
int* foo();
int main() {
if (int* f = foo()) {
return 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91335
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #0)
> As a result, the only way to fix the warning is to lift the variable into
> the outer scope, which can be undesirable from a code style point of view:
(Well, or I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91335
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge ---
I suppose a fair question here is, if I'm not going to use 'f', why don't I
just write:
if (foo()) {
return 1;
}
?
That would certainly work in this case. However, in the original code example
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #6)
> > Here is another test case that MSVC accepts but GCC rejects:
> >
> > struct A {};
> > struct A* b = (1 == 1) ? new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55373
Bug #: 55373
Summary: Partial ordering of variadic function template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-18
22:28:59 UTC ---
I filed the same bug for clang, and I was pointed to DR1395 [1]. GCC and
clang's behaviour are both in line with the resolution of this DR.
I guess this can be closed as invali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-19
03:49:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the
> case where you have a degenerate overload, like
>
> template
> int&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #21 from Nathan Ridge 2013-01-06
02:07:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > Why not apply to gcc-4_7-branch?
>
> A user who can build 4.7.2 successfully should not have to update their OS to
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
# is a special character that begins a comment in many scripting environments,
including makefiles. Escaping it is more trouble than it&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71429
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge ---
Hmm, you're right. I was actually using clang, without realizing it. Sorry for
the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60860
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #2)
> This appears to be fixed in gcc 6, possibly by the same change that fixed
> bug 60860 as well.
Perhaps by bug 70522?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60860
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #3)
> This appears to have been fixed in gcc 6.
Perhaps by bug 70522?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78280
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
For the following invalid code:
enum Waldo : uint32_t { // oops, forgot to include
A, B
};
GCC's error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64758
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge ---
By comparison, clang's error is:
test.cpp:1:14: error: unknown type name 'uint32_t'
enum Waldo : uint32_t {
^
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
Consider the following code:
int a;
void f(int a = a);
GCC accepts this code, and name lookup for the 'a' in the default argument
finds the globa
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
GCC accepts the following code:
struct{
void test();
} a;
void decltype(a)::test(){}
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48292
Summary: [C++0x] "sorry, unimplemented: use of
'type_pack_expansion' in template"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48292
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge 2011-03-25
23:52:22 UTC ---
Also, does someone know a workaround for this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48292
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2011-03-26
00:02:32 UTC ---
Found a workaround:
#include
template
int g(Args...);
template
struct deduce
{
typedef decltype(g(std::declval()...)) type;
};
template
struct A
{
template
static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48409
Summary: const qualifier for function type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48994
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge 2011-05-13
23:19:32 UTC ---
Further reduced to:
template
struct myvec
{
T* begin() const;
T* end() const;
};
void f(const myvec& v)
{
for (int i : v)
;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48994
Summary: error for trivial use of range-based 'for'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
Summary: [C++0x] decltype in member function's trailing return
type should deduce constness of *this
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49117
Summary: 4.5 -> 4.6: user-unfriendly change in "invalid
conversion" error message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Ridge 2011-06-29
21:50:06 UTC ---
Thanks Jason! Is there any chance of getting this into 4.6.2?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49836
Summary: vector::push_back() should not require T to be
(move-)assignable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 51620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51620&action=edit
Output of `clang++ -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109698
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109698
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Ridge ---
Based on some searching around for other users running into this error, this
seems to be caused by an ld bug which was fixed in 2.32:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24458
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Given the following invalid code:
struct Base {
virtual void f() = 0;
};
template
struct C : Base {
void
97 matches
Mail list logo
