https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115207
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112318
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91317
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
Extending the test case in (the invalid) #94537 to have a user-provided
destructor does not cause the "mandatory c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104577
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107906
--- Comment #3 from S. Davis Herring ---
Thanks for identifying the true common thread.
> That is not a specialization, that is an instantiation.
The standard uses specialization for every "version" of a template; some are
just "explicit speci
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
Current trunk, given <https://godbolt.org/z/aoMecfhqb>
template using X=int;
namespace {
template using Y=int;
}
te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66671
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106756
--- Comment #2 from S. Davis Herring ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> "Declaring a class to be a friend implies that private and protected
> members
> of the class granting friendship can be named in the base-specifie
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
Sometime since 12.2, GCC has started accepting
struct A {
struct B {
friend int f(B*) {return i;}
};
private:
static int i;
};
despite the express limitation in [class.nest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44402
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103876
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #8 from S. Davis Herring ---
I looked at P2266R3 again; it claims that the conversion function case (in #7)
is actually covered by P1825R0. I think that case is questionable, since it
still refers to "overload resolution to select th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #7 from S. Davis Herring ---
> In the withMove case, in C++20, we issue:
> warning: moving a local object in a return statement prevents copy elision
> for
> template Dest withMove();
> and:
> warning: redundant move in return stateme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #5 from S. Davis Herring ---
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but your example (as well as compiling
the original example with -std=c++20, which produces the same warning but now
calls Dest(Dest&&) in the noMove case) means tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
--- Comment #3 from S. Davis Herring ---
Does this need to be language-version-dependent, given
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1825r0.html (in
C++20) and
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2266r3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12228
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95849
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90493
--- Comment #4 from S. Davis Herring ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Reduced to show just the rejects-valid part:
>
> template extern const int foo = 41;
> // this is an error:
> // error: explicit template specialization ca
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
In many recent versions of GCC, the following valid code
struct A {
template
static constexpr const int &x=0;
};
temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
The current build at Compiler Explorer rejects
struct A {
template operator T*() const;
};
class B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
GCC incorrectly accepts the following:
struct F {F(F&&)=delete;};
template
struct M {
F f;
M();
M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57998
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92320
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90493
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
The following program throws during static initialization iff A<0>::x is
instantiated, which it must be because of the static_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68092
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
Consider a simple struct whose members can be accessed by name or by index:
struct vec {double x,y,z;};
double get(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #7 from S. Davis Herring ---
We can extend the C test case (thanks for that) with a shared, non-constant
value (and more savings by having dead code as in the original C++ example):
void foo(int *p,int *q,int x) {
*q=*p=x;
if(*p!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #3 from S. Davis Herring ---
Created attachment 41314
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41314&action=edit
bad assembly test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #2 from S. Davis Herring ---
So sorry. For whatever reason, copy/paste works for me thence...
#include
#include
#include
struct A { // vaguely unique_ptr-like
void *p;
A(A &&a) : p(a.release()) {}
~A() {i
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: herring at lanl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
Swapping (by move-construction/assignment) two instances of
struct A { // vaguely unique_ptr-like
--- Comment #2 from herring at lanl dot gov 2006-12-11 19:24 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27558 ***
Thanks for finding that for me! I tried for an hour to locate this bug in the
database (because I discovered it some time
at warning with pointers to arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: herring at lanl dot gov
GCC build triplet: i6
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: herring at lanl dot gov
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29048
--- Additional Comments From herring at lanl dot gov 2005-08-22 21:14
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Oh, next time don't copy and paste the preprocessed source into the bug but
rather attach it.
Er, yeah, I feel silly now -- I found #14950 while trying to make sure that mine
46 matches
Mail list logo
