https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asorenji at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks to be fixed in GCC 11. It still fails for me with GCC 10.3 though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e961da38630c892dfc0723e0726b6a0b0833e951
commit r10-9722-ge961da38630c892dfc0723e0726b6a0b0833e951
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkeir at outlook dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vittorio.romeo at outlook dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk, I think we want to backport this though eventually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:559d2f1e0eafd96c19dc5324db1a466286c0e7fc
commit r11-8056-g559d2f1e0eafd96c19dc5324db1a466286c0e7fc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> For the global vars (so PR80039 too), can the problem be anything but when
> cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is called on such an object (or part
> thereof)?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> And in #c9 you're right that it could be embedded in CONSTRUCTORs too.
Wonder if cp_walk_tree &arg to find the ADDR_EXPR of heap var addresses and
ctx->global-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And in #c9 you're right that it could be embedded in CONSTRUCTORs too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the global vars (so PR80039 too), can the problem be anything but when
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is called on such an object (or part thereof)?
Unfortunately, ctx->object might be NULL, perhaps we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2021-03-19 18:36:49.165304923 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2021-04-07 15:33:31.993242067 +0200
@@ -1616,6 +1616,22 @@ cxx_bind_parameters_in_call (const const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> The argument is a pointer.
> Now, I bet a pointer to an automatic variable will be seen as non-constant
> and so in that case we might be ok.
> If the argument is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why does it work for:
constexpr int foo(int* x) { return ++*x; }
struct S { constexpr S() : a(0) { foo(&a); foo(&a); } int a; };
constexpr S s;
static_assert (s.a == 2);
though? The argument to foo after con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
constexpr void foo(int* x) { ++*x; }
constexpr int bar() {
int* x = new int(0);
foo(x);
foo(x);
int y = *x;
delete x;
return y;
}
static_assert(bar() == 2);
We reject the above testcase for seemi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The argument is a pointer.
Now, I bet a pointer to an automatic variable will be seen as non-constant and
so in that case we might be ok.
If the argument is a pointer to some global constexpr variable, dunno.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So, on the #c3 testcase, if I put a breakpoint before and after
> fold_nondependent_expr in finish_static_assert and temporarily in between
> those two breakpoint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The instantiation isn't the problem,
template
struct intrusive_ptr
{
T *ptr = nullptr;
constexpr explicit intrusive_ptr(T* p) : ptr(p) {
++ptr->count_;
}
constexpr ~intrusive_ptr() {
if (ptr-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
It was pointed out that it _also_ works if I change
> static_assert(foo());
to
> constexpr bool b = foo();
> static_assert(b);
static_assert(foo());
24 matches
Mail list logo
