[Bug c++/114569] GCC accepts forming pointer to function type which is ref qualified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569 Jens Maurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/111923] default argument is not treated as a complete-class context of a class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923 Jens Maurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net --- Comment #1

[Bug libstdc++/109822] New: Converting std::experimental::simd masks yields an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109822 Bug ID: 109822 Summary: Converting std::experimental::simd masks yields an error Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/105200] user-defined operator <=> for enumerated types is ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200 Jens Maurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net --- Comment #7

[Bug c++/107022] error: use of deleted function 'std::unordered_map

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107022 --- Comment #8 from Jens Maurer --- I understand we're in a tangled web of partially-complete class rules here, but the standard does give you the expectation that the inner class is complete at its closing brace: [class.pre] p2 says: "A class

[Bug c++/107340] New: std::unordered_map and completeness of nested classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107340 Bug ID: 107340 Summary: std::unordered_map and completeness of nested classes Product: gcc Version: 11.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug c++/106812] Throwing a non-copyable exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106812 --- Comment #1 from Jens Maurer --- Cross-reference: clang bug https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57519

[Bug c++/106812] New: Throwing a non-copyable exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106812 Bug ID: 106812 Summary: Throwing a non-copyable exception Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/106150] [DR 2084] union with more than one variant and non-trivial constructor is not accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150 --- Comment #6 from Jens Maurer --- Related clang bug: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56313

[Bug c++/106150] New: Incorrect error for defaulted anonymous union member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150 Bug ID: 106150 Summary: Incorrect error for defaulted anonymous union member Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/105651] bogus "may overlap" memcpy warning with std::string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651 Jens Maurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/103177] New: incorrect error message for ambiguous lookup

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103177 Bug ID: 103177 Summary: incorrect error message for ambiguous lookup Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/101480] [11/12 Regression] Miscompiled code involving operator new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101480 --- Comment #10 from Jens Maurer --- I agree with Jonathan here: The difference is that "malloc" comes with the compiler/library and cannot be replaced (within the scope of the C or C++ standards), but "operator new" is expressly specified to be

[Bug c++/101480] [11/12 Regression] Miscompiled code involving operator new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101480 --- Comment #3 from Jens Maurer --- "We treat the global operator new as not reading from global memory" If I implement my own global "operator new" afresh, certainly it'll need to access global memory, e.g. to read a global pointer to the heap

[Bug c++/101480] New: Miscompiled code involving operator new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101480 Bug ID: 101480 Summary: Miscompiled code involving operator new Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug tree-optimization/100430] False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430 --- Comment #4 from Jens Maurer --- Thanks. My take-away from the discussion is that -Warray-bounds triggers when there might be a code path with bad behavior. Whether such a code path is detected depends very much on the details of optimizatio

[Bug tree-optimization/100430] False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430 --- Comment #2 from Jens Maurer --- Why does the warning go away with -O3, then? If it's intentional, it should be consistent once the optimization level is sufficient for the necessary static analysis.

[Bug c++/100430] New: False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430 Bug ID: 100430 Summary: False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/52202] [C++11][DR 1376] Should not extend lifetime of temporary wrapped in static_cast to reference type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202 --- Comment #5 from Jens Maurer --- Core issue 1299 resolved via http://wg21.link/p0727 does in fact lifetime-extend the temporary in the example. This bug report should therefore be closed without action. (If a test case is missing that lifetim