https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90770
--- Comment #5 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
Created attachment 46466
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46466&action=edit
Complete terminal output during the non-parallel build after applying the
patchset
I confirm that your patchs
oduct: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 46456
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #10 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
Okay, I see it now. Thank you very much, Jakub, for your clear explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Tadeus Prastowo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #4 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
My use-case is to use the instantiation of `struct X' to fire the static
assert.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following MWE:
-- 8<
template
struct Y {
static constexpr bool value = false;
};
templ
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
For the following example, requesting a strict compliance to C++17 using
"-std=c++17
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
struct A {
static constexpr int v {1};
};
struct B {
static constexpr int v {1};
};
static_assert(&A::v == &A::v, "1");
static_assert(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891
--- Comment #9 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
This problem still exists in the trunk (cf. https://godbolt.org/g/bRf18i).
Clang correctly keeps rejecting it (cf. https://godbolt.org/g/egcNtV). Both
use the following MWE:
template
struct X {
static
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
The following MWE is correctly rejected by GCC version <= 5.5 (cf.
https://godbolt.org/g/Me9i13 (5.5) and ht
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
The following program is ill-formed based on
http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.arg.nontype (#1 and #2) and
http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#2.7. However,
GCC 8.1 compiles fine
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Using http://godbolt.org, I see that the following program compiles in
any clang version that supports `-std=c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84464
Tadeus Prastowo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.3.0 |8.1.0
--- Comment #1 from Tadeus Prast
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
Target Milestone: ---
I am referring to C++14 standard
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3797.pdf) for the
following problem. Section
14 matches
Mail list logo
