http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
--- Comment #7 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 30946
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30946&action=edit
Standalone repro
Dodji,
It has just occured to me that you probably want an executable repro with nice
runtime err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58593
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58593
Bug ID: 58593
Summary: [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in
gfc_conv_string_tmp, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2360
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> Because a SFINAE proper error is when you have an hard error, essentially by
> definition from the implementation point of view, not when a static_assert
> trigge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58592
Bug ID: 58592
Summary: -flto -fwhole-program caused undefined reference in
g++ 4.7.3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Or we don't reject:
struct S { int member; struct member{}; };
template
struct C { typedef typename T::member U; };
template class C;
but you see my point. I'm surprised that we don't already have somethin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Or, I don't know, simple C++98 which we should also reject:
//--
struct S { int member; struct member{}; };
template
struct C { };
template class C;
//--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Because a SFINAE proper error is when you have an hard error, essentially by
definition from the implementation point of view, not when a static_assert
triggers. And this is not the case here. Unless you have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
> I still believe this isn't a SFINAE proper issue.
Could you please elaborate why?
> Also note that in the original testcase main was *empty*.
Sure, because I d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
I still believe this isn't a SFINAE proper issue. Also note that in the
original testcase main was *empty*.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58591
--- Comment #2 from Cary Coutant ---
I *think* the correct mangling should be this:
$ c++filt _Z9ConstructI1AiiEvPT_DpOT0_
void Construct(A*, (int&&)...)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58591
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Google ref: b/10860844
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> Not having investigated this issue at all, I doubt that it should be
> considered a SFINAE proper issue,
Well, the actual programmer problem occurred in this con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58591
Bug ID: 58591
Summary: GCC emits bad mangling for template function with a
parameter pack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
Not having investigated this issue at all, I doubt that it should be considered
a SFINAE proper issue, that is I think it should be possible to demonstrate it
in an even smaller testcase, not using the usual S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
--- Comment #6 from Albert ---
Thanks for the very quick reply and also for the fix!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 1 21:00:17 2013
New Revision: 203088
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203088&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/58579
* trans-expr.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 1 20:52:49 2013
New Revision: 203086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/55469
* io/list_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58519
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
Bug ID: 58590
Summary: [C++11] Hidden typename not ill-formed under SFINAE
conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58563
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58563
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 1 18:45:12 2013
New Revision: 203079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203079&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-01 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58563
* parser.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Please, if you really want to see progress on this issue, do your best to
reduce the reproducer to a manageable size, normally less than, say, 100 lines
are more than enough.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
--- Comment #6 from sonoro at telefonica dot net ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> In any case a self contained reproducer is a requirement. Please do your
> best to reduce it to a manageable size
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
--- Comment #5 from sonoro at telefonica dot net ---
Is there anything else I must provide in order to solve this issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
--- Comment #7 from Rich Felker ---
I claim it's a bug in that GCC should _either_ check the canary at some point,
or eliminate the code that's loading the canary to begin with since it will
never be checked.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58578
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Re: Not creating loops with multiple entries, no doubt that's bad.
It would be nice however, to expose loop nesting. ie, prior to threading it
looks like one bug fugly loop. A bit of threading can sometim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58576
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Tue Oct 1 15:26:50 2013
New Revision: 203067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/58576
* include/bits/regex_automat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57298
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 1 14:49:36 2013
New Revision: 203064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/57298
* config/linux/proc.c (gomp_cpuset_size, gomp_cpuse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.2 |4.7.4
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
--- Comment #5 from Timo Teräs ---
I have the same issue and confirm this issue. Any ideas how to fix it properly?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 1 13:50:30 2013
New Revision: 203062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58574
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_chunkify_start): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Thanks, are you going to post it to gcc-patches and commit then? Can I post
> the 4.8 patch there afterwards, or do you prefer some different alternative
> fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #13 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Oct 1 13:33:02 2013
New Revision: 203060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203060&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Jakub Jelinek
Andreas Krebbel
PR targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58578
--- Comment #4 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Tue Oct 1 13:19:31 2013
New Revision: 203059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
gcc/
PR target/58578
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, are you going to post it to gcc-patches and commit then? Can I post
the 4.8 patch there afterwards, or do you prefer some different alternative for
4.8?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30938|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The second one started with r192199 as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
Bug ID: 58589
Summary: diagnostics: missing proper file:line on C++
compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 1 11:05:17 2013
New Revision: 203057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite/]
2013-10-01 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #14)
Furthermore the name hiding happening here
template>>
Function(F);
needs to be fixed (it was not in your previous example):
template>>
Function(F);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> Argh, yes, I didn't read the diagnostic properly after that last change,
> sorry!
Thanks. I think the actual problem can be resolve by moving
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Argh, yes, I didn't read the diagnostic properly after that last change, sorry!
Corrected:
struct false_type { enum { value=0 }; };
struct true_type { enum { value=1 }; };
template
struct add_rvalue_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Further reduced (clang gives the same error for this version):
>
> template struct enable_if { typedef void type; };
> template struct enable_if { };
Jonath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
--- Comment #6 from Yury Gribov ---
Dodji,
Let me know if I can provide additional info which may help to debug/fix this.
-Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced (clang gives the same error for this version):
struct false_type { enum { value=0 }; };
struct true_type { enum { value=1 }; };
template
struct add_rvalue_reference {
using type = T&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
>
> // template struct CheckResult :
> std::true_type { };
Sorry, bugzilla wrapped that line, you'll need to join those lines or comment
out the std::true_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Somewhat reduced:
#include
template
inline _Functor&
__callable_functor(_Functor& __f)
{ return __f; }
template struct Function;
template
struct Function
{
template
using Invoke = decltype(_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This might be a front-end bug, I'm struggling to reduce it though.
If I produce prepreocessed code then clang++ compiles it fine.
Adding this to the global namespace (so that version gets found by unqualif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> And it should only happen when instantiating the converting constructor
> template or converting assignment operator function, not when instantiating
> the clas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
Why would LWG 2132 require any such check during the instantiation of the class
template or during the instantiation of the default constructor? The
constraints
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And it should only happen when instantiating the converting constructor
template or converting assignment operator function, not when instantiating the
class template.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> I don't see a good
> reasons why std::function should check std::is_convertible foo> when instantiating the class template.
It's done to check the constraint i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 1 07:41:10 2013
New Revision: 203054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58553
* tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Yes, threading is rotating the loop in "interest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58578
--- Comment #3 from Kugan ---
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/kugan/work/install-trunk/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/kugan/work/install-trunk/libexec/gcc/armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: armv7l-unknown-li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
[Somehow bugzilla lost my response]
Yes, foo is incomplete within a data member declaration of type foo and this
breaks std::is_convertible, because the arguments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58587
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So we have:
(insn 720 719 728 107 (set (reg:TI 132 [ D.24779 ])
(const_double -16 [0xfff0] 7 [0x7] 0 [0] 0 [0]))
par.adb:1509 721 {*vsx_movti_64bit}
(nil))
Reloads for insn # 720
Relo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can fix it in the library by adding this to std::function
template
struct _CheckResult<_CallRes, _CallRes>
: true_type { };
75 matches
Mail list logo
