https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Mon Jul 13 20:35:53 2015
New Revision: 225749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/65186
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/65186
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #11)
> Hi Patrick. Opening a new bug certainly is OK, in particular in this case
> where we failed to just simplify the testcase originally submitted. Thus,
> when you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi Patrick. Opening a new bug certainly is OK, in particular in this case where
we failed to just simplify the testcase originally submitted. Thus, when your
patch goes in, just resolve this one as fixed and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
When I said that this PR is not a dup of c++/30044 I sadly failed to look at
#c1 and instead only looked at #c3. The test case in #c1 does appear to
effectively be a dup of c++/30044, and with the fix for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Patrick!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> Dup of c++/30044?
I don't think it's a duplicate but they do seem related. My patch for
c++/30044 does not fix this ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact comment 3 doesn't even need C++11, it's valid C++03.
It came from http://stackoverflow.com/a/29696258/981959
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.2, 5.0, 6.0
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
14 matches
Mail list logo
