https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Friedt ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #8)
> > My code is clearly valid C++ according to g++ :-)
>
> Maybe you mean clang++ but even then, no it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Friedt ---
Thanks - I wasn't using -pedantic, but you have certainly proven stuff.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #8)
> My code is clearly valid C++ according to g++ :-)
Maybe you mean clang++ but even then, no it's not:
$ clang++ -pedantic gen.cc
gen.cc:15:32: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Friedt ---
My code is clearly valid C++ according to g++ :-)
Thanks for your help in any case.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 7:38 AM redi at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #6)
> It's supported OOTB in `clang++` but fails in `g++`.
Nobody is disputing that, but Clang supports lots of things that aren't valid
in C++ and aren't supp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Friedt ---
It's supported OOTB in `clang++` but fails in `g++`.
The example above is the simplest example that illustrates the issue.
I am not being abusive, but it certainly did feel like gaslighting to read
"y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #3)
> All you need to do is look at the example above pulled directly from
> cppreference.com, but please simply gaslight the user if that's an easier
> path to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #3)
> All you need to do is look at the example above pulled directly from
> cppreference.com, but please simply gaslight the user if that's an easier
> path to r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Friedt ---
All you need to do is look at the example above pulled directly from
cppreference.com, but please simply gaslight the user if that's an easier path
to resolution for you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #0)
> It's not clear to me if any part of the ISO C++ standard requires a C++
> compiler to parse C11 _Generic,
It's very clear that it doesn't, _Generic is ne
11 matches
Mail list logo
