https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the testcase in comment #12 was not resolved with the patches but is
filed as PR 93413.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 20 17:33:13 2019
New Revision: 279664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-12-03 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 20 17:32:23 2019
New Revision: 279663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-12-02 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 20 17:26:28 2019
New Revision: 279661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-28 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Toni Neubert from comment #15)
> I really cannot help you with this. I am sorry. I don't understand the
> compilers source code/internals at all. I just can thank you guys for your
> ongoing wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 08:19:04 2019
New Revision: 278921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92695
* constexpr.c (cxx_bind_parameters_in_call):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #15 from Toni Neubert ---
I really cannot help you with this. I am sorry. I don't understand the
compilers source code/internals at all. I just can thank you guys for your
ongoing work. I really appreciate it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 2 21:33:06 2019
New Revision: 278912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92695
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For #c12, I think that is because of:
5615 /* Defer virtual destructors so that thunks get the right
5616 linkage. */
5617 if (DECL_VIRTUAL_P (decl) && !at_eof)
5618
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #12 from Toni Neubert ---
Hello, I got another error using virtual classes:
```
struct A {
virtual constexpr ~A() = default;
};
struct B : A {};
constexpr bool test() {
B b;
return true;
}
static_assert(test());
```
->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #11 from Toni Neubert ---
I tested all patches and it works as expected.
Thank you very much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 28 08:06:09 2019
New Revision: 278802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92695
* decl2.c (mark_used): Don't call note_vague
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47383|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47384
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47384&action=edit
gcc10-pr92695-3.patch
That is another bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #7 from Toni Neubert ---
First of all thank you very much for your extremly fast help!
I testet the patch and it did work for my second example.
But this one still fails, if we do not use the addressof function:
struct A {
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47383&action=edit
gcc10-pr92695.patch
And here is a fix for the bogus warning. inline or constexpr on pure virtual
functions loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be precise, I meant something like:
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2019-11-27 10:03:37.916867165 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2019-11-27 16:55:17.475150697 +0100
@@ -1441,6 +1441,22 @@ cxx_bind_parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #2 from Toni Neubert ---
Copy paste error. The above example should be:
```
struct A {
constexpr virtual int get() = 0;
constexpr virtual int set(A *o) = 0;
};
struct B : A {
constexpr int get() override {
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #1 from Toni Neubert ---
Future more, the following example also fails. Could be the same root cause but
another error message appears:
accessing value of 'f.Foo::b[0].B::' through a 'B' glvalue in a
constant expression
Clang is ju
24 matches
Mail list logo
