https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117520
Bug ID: 117520
Summary: C++26 std::text_encoding: == should be =
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117406
--- Comment #2 from Paul Keir ---
Created attachment 59519
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59519&action=edit
Test for the proposed fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117406
--- Comment #3 from Paul Keir ---
At least for ilogb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117406
Bug ID: 117406
Summary: std::ilogb should return INT_MAX when argument is
infinite also for 16-bit floats
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117321
Bug ID: 117321
Summary: std::float16_t: undefined reference to `nextafterf16'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87275
Paul Keir changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkeir at outlook dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 116695, which changed state.
Bug 116695 Summary: [c++11/c++14] Undefined behaviour involving unsequenced
side effects on a memory location during constant evaluation should not compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116695
Paul Keir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116695
Bug ID: 116695
Summary: Undefined behaviour involving unsequenced side effects
on a memory location during constant evaluation should
not compile
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
Bug ID: 115639
Summary: Large variations in compilation times involving
static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #8 from Paul Keir ---
I wonder if a small part of this bug still remains. The code below should
#include , but as it doesn't, we get an error message. The
message now gives all the right information but, with -std=c++23 and
-std=c++2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113306
Bug ID: 113306
Summary: constexpr cast from void* fails with typeid result
target
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113294
Bug ID: 113294
Summary: constexpr error from accessing inactive union member
in basic_string after move assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #4 from Paul Keir ---
I believe P2448R2 would only allow the code, without the static_assert.
Explicitly calling `test()`, `Jam::Jam()` and then `Jam::ft()` here would mean
evaluating a non-constexpr function (i.e. `ft`). ft is *cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Bug ID: 111379
Summary: comparison between unequal pointers to void should be
illegal during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #2 from Paul Keir ---
Thanks. The `-Winvalid-constexpr` mentioned there is a helpful workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Bug ID: 111272
Summary: Truncated error messages with -std=c++23 and
-std=c++26
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248
Paul Keir changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkeir at outlook dot com
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110714
--- Comment #3 from Paul Keir ---
Actually, there's no need here to delete through the base pointer; so this is
perhaps simpler:
struct Base
{
constexpr Base* get_this() { return this; }
int x;
};
struct Derived : public Base {};
constexp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110714
--- Comment #2 from Paul Keir ---
I know. `delete pf` also works. The issue seems to be with the use of the this
pointer within the member function. This is just the MRE - I've come across
this issue twice now in our code base.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110714
Bug ID: 110714
Summary: constexpr lifetime error: base class this pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106107
Bug ID: 106107
Summary: dynamic_cast fail within constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102406
Bug ID: 102406
Summary: ICE on array declaration sized by a struct member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100138
Bug ID: 100138
Summary: ICE with constructor constrained (C++20 Concepts) by
parameter pack length
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
24 matches
Mail list logo
