subject:"\[Bug c\+\+\/93169\] \[10 regression\] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section."

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-02-19 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-02-19 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f9dd1b0bdd935592ba151e9d843fddf6193afbc commit r10-6749-g8f9dd1b0bdd935592ba151e9d843fddf6193afbc Author: Marek Polacek Date: We

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-02-19 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-02-14 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-06 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-06 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- The relevant rule is http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.constexpr#7 but that whole subclause is new since C++03 :-)

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > > I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. B

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-06 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because > > b::c's field h's constructor is not con

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because > b::c's field h's constructor is not constexr. If that is the case, then > should be accept

[Bug c++/93169] [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly section.

2020-01-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because b::c's field h's constructor is not constexr. If that is the case, then should be accepts invalid code.