https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
--- Comment #5 from Pavel Roskin ---
Confirming fix on the original code. Thank you!
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: proski at gnu dot org
Target Milestone: ---
This code fails to compile with the current gcc (commit
d9be9f34fbb018c448dc5a02aaa95d6a6932135c)
class Base {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||proski at gnu dot org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88528
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Roskin ---
The trivial backport of PR c++/85032 fixes both my testcase and the original
issue with my code. Please include the fix in gcc 7.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88528
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Roskin ---
I ran "git bisect" between gcc 7.1.0 (affected) and gcc 8.1.0 (unaffected).
Following commit fixed the issue:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/e0ccd4807edc919735b4d86590b5a9def529f91c
2018-04-11 Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88528
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression in gcc 7.4 |ICE with templated operator
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: proski at gnu dot org
Target Milestone: ---
gcc 7.4.0 fails to compile some code that could be compiled with earlier
version of gcc 7.x. I don't see that issue with gcc 4.9.4, 5.5.0, 6.5.0 and
8.1.0. The issue still exists with the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85569
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||proski at gnu dot org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||proski at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Roskin ---
Created attachment 44770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44770&action=edit
Futher reduced example
I was able to reduce the example to just 55 lines, removing almost all the code
that came
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Roskin ---
Created attachment 44761
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44761&action=edit
Heavily simplified example, g++-5 compatible
I'm attaching a dumbed down version of the previous example, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81513
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: proski at gnu dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44378
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44378&action=edit
Preprocessed test case
The attached file t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85092
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Roskin ---
I confirm that the issue has been fixed in the project I'm working on. Thank
you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85092
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||proski at gnu dot org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85101
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Roskin ---
Created attachment 43779
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43779&action=edit
Preprocessed source
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: proski at gnu dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Today's gcc source from git. C++17 and C++2a are affected, C++14 is not. I was
able to compile that code with the latest (at the time) gcc snapshot about a
month ago, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81513
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Roskin ---
__has_cpp_attribute is not supposed to check if the functionality is available
somehow using some other approaches and keywords. It is supposed to check if
the functionality is available as an attribute.
Even
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: proski at gnu dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Following compiles with "g++ -Wall -std=c++03 test.cpp -o test" and outputs
"200809 201603 199711"
#in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
--- Comment #10 from proski at gnu dot org 2012-05-07 12:35:40 UTC ---
I applied the patch to gcc 4.7.0 and tested it with my example and GNU
Lilypond. Both are fixed. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
--- Comment #6 from proski at gnu dot org 2012-05-07 02:50:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27330
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27330
Self-contained test case
Run the "compile" script. The output would be:
return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
--- Comment #1 from proski at gnu dot org 2012-05-04 21:43:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 27310
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27310
Example (made on i386)
This line is miscompiled:
next = min (next, it->pending_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
Bug #: 53239
Summary: [4.7 Regression] -ftree-vrp breaks min()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
23 matches
Mail list logo