https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102712
--- Comment #3 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
Oh well this is embarrassing, I was looking at _Optional_payload_base::_M_get()
instead of _Optional_base_impl::_M_get() .
Sorry for the noise and thanks for fixing this 4 years ago!
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ott at fb dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It is UB to call operator* on an unset std::optional, and when doing so it is
easy to hit time-traveling UB, resulting in behavior that is very hard to
debug.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60352
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
It still happens in GCC 7: https://godbolt.org/g/GgyCZn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60352
Giuseppe Ottaviano changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ott at fb dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72828
--- Comment #4 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that this is not a regression, as far as I can
tell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72828
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
Martin, I noticed you marked this as "[5/6/7 Regression]", but to be clear the
bug is present since at least 4.9 (the oldest version I tested).
It's only the attached reduction that is sensitive to compi
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ott at fb dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 39067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39067&action=edit
Repro for GCC 6.1.0
Trying to compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #36 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #35)
> I've backported the std::allocator_traits> partial
> specialization to the gcc-4.9 and gcc-5 branches now. Please let me know if
> this makes any differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #29 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
(In reply to Rene Koecher from comment #28)
> (In reply to Giuseppe Ottaviano from comment #26)
>
> Giuseppe, is there an easy way you could provide me with your changes to
> alloc_traits.h?
>
> I'd r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #26 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #25)
> There was a G++ bug (now fixed) that made void_t not work, try this
> alternative version:
>
> template< class... > struct __voider { using type = void;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #24 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
> No, only on trunk. It depends on the additions in r225242, so to use the new
> alloc_traits.h you would only need the new code in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/std/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #22 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
>> The regression might have been already solved in r225244, which uses
>> yet another SFINAE pattern without extra template arguments, which I
>> believe are the cause of the regression. However I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
Giuseppe Ottaviano changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ott at fb dot com
--- Comment #19
13 matches
Mail list logo
