http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
--- Comment #16 from Dave Abrahams 2012-12-14
16:34:31 UTC ---
Normative text vs. non-normative note == no contest, IMO. But I guess it
doesn't hurt to have the bug open if it doesn't mean any changes to the
library.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55581
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2012-12-04
19:30:40 UTC ---
Actually, here's a simpler test case:
template
struct mooch
{
mooch operator->();
};
template <>
struct mooch<0>
{
int x;
mooch<0>* operator->();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55581
Bug #: 55581
Summary: Too-eager instantiation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2012-11-04
16:48:39 UTC ---
PS my apologies again for the size. Just no time to reduce it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2012-11-04
16:47:37 UTC ---
I hate bugzilla for always tempting me to think I can add attachments when
first submitting a bug, and then refusing the attachment because it's too big.
Voilà
https://raw.github.co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
Bug #: 55206
Summary: GCC Reports Ambiguity; clang and comeau disagree
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54706
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2012-09-25
19:55:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> As already discussed in another PR, with -fsyntax-only no template
> instantiation occurs. Can be that?
Certainly that explains it.
> In any cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54706
Bug #: 54706
Summary: -fsyntax-only suppresses a compilation error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #6 from Dave Abrahams 2012-08-18
23:18:21 UTC ---
Jason, are you submitting (or is there already) an issue for this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52875
Bug #: 52875
Summary: ADL failure + ICE in decltype
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Bug #: 52869
Summary: "this" not being allowed in noexcept clauses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2012-04-03
15:06:08 UTC ---
I think the problem is simple: missing initial type argument to vector_c in:
template
auto apply_tuple(F f, Tuple const & t, vector_c)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Bug #: 52844
Summary: ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
13:24:16 UTC ---
Not a problem; thanks for looking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
12:11:33 UTC ---
on Mon Dec 19 2011, "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
> 11:51:52 UTC ---
> Cou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
10:58:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, this was an intentional choice (as I described in message
> c++std-lib-30840) to ensure the system doesn't get killed by a fork bomb, e.g.
> writing a p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
Bug #: 51618
Summary: synchronous futures are slow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
05:11:20 UTC ---
I should add this (non-normative, but still) note from [futures.async]:
[ Note: If this policy is specified together with other policies, such as when
using a policy value of launch::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Bug #: 51617
Summary: [C++0x] async(f) isn't.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:58:37 UTC ---
Close this please! So sorry; I was totally misinterpreting what I saw.
There's no compiler crash.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:53:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26097
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26097
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Bug #: 51561
Summary: Compilation segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51553
Bug #: 51553
Summary: brace initialization and conversion operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-13
17:46:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 26072
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26072
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
Bug #: 51530
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:16854
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-11
10:32:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Could this be related to Bug 45873?
Not if your explanation in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873#c2
is correct, I think. This is a straight
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-10
21:06:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26045
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26045
test case
compile with -std=c++11 to see the failure. Additionally add -DWORKAROUND to
demonstrate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
Bug #: 51501
Summary: decltype over-agressive SFINAE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47335
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-10
19:19:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 26044
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26044
Another test case
Sorry, it's a bit long. Hopefully fixing the others handles this one too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51489
Bug #: 51489
Summary: constexpr not working consistently
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51478
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #1
--- Comment #23 from dave at boostpro dot com 2009-04-06 09:35 ---
Subject: Re: deep typedef substitution in error message
On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:45 PM, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
>
>
>> Also, I'm not thrilled that
>>
>> boost::sequence::detail:
--- Comment #20 from dave at boostpro dot com 2009-04-04 01:33 ---
Subject: Re: deep typedef substitution in error message
on Fri Apr 03 2009, "jason at gcc dot gnu dot org"
wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 21:45
> -
37 matches
Mail list logo
