https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108626
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #4 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108626
--- Comment #6 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Marat Radchenko from comment #5)
> So, does "String literals, and compound literals with const-qualified types,
> need not designate distinct objects." apply here or not? If not, how does
> the case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108781
Bug ID: 108781
Summary: Underlying variables of structured bindings should not
be treated as having external or module linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108781
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
Oh, the variable doesn't seem strictly unnamed ([dcl.struct.bind]/1):
> First, a variable with a unique name e is introduced.
But it seems that `e` should be unique in the whole program...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #4 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108243
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #8 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #6 from Jiang An ---
> For example, assuming both sizeof(B) and sizeof(D) are 8, which means the last
> 2 bytes of B are padding (true for common implementations on Itanium ABI):
Oh, I forgot the strange design caused by CWG43 - thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108974
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109024
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95701
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109049
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
I've mailed to LWG Chair to request legitimation of libc++ and libstdc++'s
current strategy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70476
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #12 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70476
--- Comment #13 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Maciej S. Szmigiero from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > Does these two functions the same name then?
> > ```
> > namespace a {
> >extern "C" void f(void);
> > }
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70476
--- Comment #15 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Maciej S. Szmigiero from comment #14)
> > This is not so useful in practice because most compilers don't make extern
> > "C" and extern "C++" differentiate function types (implying calling
> > conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105118
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102301
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #8 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #18 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105281
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #19 from Jiang An ---
Oh... I was wrong. TR1 mentioned -f and -l variants of "new" (C99) function
families (e.g. truncf), but no those of "old" (C89) math function families.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102301
--- Comment #11 from Jiang An ---
I think the P2165R4 has clarifed that std::make_from_tuple etc. need to be
applicable to std::ranges::subrange. And a large part of LWG3690 becomes NAD in
C++23 - tuple-like utilities no longer touch std::varian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104443
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
LWG3672 has been adopted, so no change is needed and this issue can be closed.
Although it might be more clear to use auto instead of decltype(auto).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106852
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107092
Bug ID: 107092
Summary: std::for_each_n and its friends incorrectly accept
size parameters that are not convertible to an integer
type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107256
Bug ID: 107256
Summary: Contradictory circular noexcept-specifier is accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107092
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3793 has been submitted.
Such requirement was originally added by N0700
(https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1995/N0700.pdf), but
intented target types were u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107255
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78014
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #9 from Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107324
Bug ID: 107324
Summary: Defaulted operator== with a dependent return type is
rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107325
Bug ID: 107325
Summary: Defaulted operator<=> with a non-comparison-category
return type is not deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103655
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
It seems that MS implemented the "x" mode in 2020:
https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/cpp-docs/commit/3e0701d935614423e1f09a6712cb5b5e28c43022#diff-be5df6fa41d451f0736c5cd8d863fb3bccfd2b49fbd6b0f7f5de6c07c87700ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103655
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104264
Bug ID: 104264
Summary: __is_trivially_copyable fails to report
non-recursively trivially copyable classes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104443
Bug ID: 104443
Summary: common_iterator::operator-> is not correctly
implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104542
Bug ID: 104542
Summary: make_obj_using_allocator and
uninitialized_construct_using_allocator lack constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104559
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103183
Bug ID: 103183
Summary: ind[arr] produces an lvalue when arr is an array
xvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, rej
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103185
Bug ID: 103185
Summary: ind[arr] is rejected when arr is an array prvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103511
Bug ID: 103511
Summary: __builtin_bit_cast requires a constructor call
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72777
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #6 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38541
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95564
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102535
Bug ID: 102535
Summary: __is_trivially_constructible rejects some trivial
cases in aggregate initializations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102894
Bug ID: 102894
Summary: make_any is not SFINAE-friendly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107528
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #11 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107904
Bug ID: 107904
Summary: __func__ is not properly treated as an array variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, rejects-valid
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108260
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108260
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
__cpp_lib_ranges_as_rvalue is also missing... (together with feature test
macros for C++23 views?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #7 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101482
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
Partially fixed together with bug #62187.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105995
Bug ID: 105995
Summary: QoI: constexpr basic_string variable must use all of
its SSO buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105995
--- Comment #2 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> C++20 supports dynamic allocation for constexpr.
Yeah, but a constexpr variable can't hold dynamically allocated memory.
Dynamically allocated memory must be dealloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71108
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101482
Bug ID: 101482
Summary: The resolution of #32907 is too restricted
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101906
Bug ID: 101906
Summary: Constant evaluation failure in concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113851
Bug ID: 113851
Summary: boyer_moore_searcher and boyer_moore_horspool_searcher
fail to accept ADL-incompatible element types
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #4 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
--- Comment #5 from Jiang An ---
Function pointers seem working (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Mbvfafdof).
```
template
constexpr bool is_array_element_initializable_from = false;
template
constexpr bool is_array_element_initializable_from decltype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
--- Comment #6 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #5)
> `decltype(std::declval
> decltype(_Arr<_Ti>{{std::forward<_Tp>(__t)}})>(std::declval<_Tp>()))`
Typo, this should be
`decltype(std::declval
decltype(_Arr<_Ti>{{std::forwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113007
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #8 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
--- Comment #8 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #7)
> Hi,
>
> > Note that this example adds a mediate function template
> > (test_array_element_initializable) to "reduce" the non-constexpr-ness of
> > std::declval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114018
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #12 from Jia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113782
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114078
Bug ID: 114078
Summary: operator new and operator delete are incorrectly
acceptable as explicit object member functions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104850
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #5 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114076
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114076
--- Comment #2 from Jiang An ---
The "templatization" trick also works for GCC.
https://godbolt.org/z/8PeMMzsbb
```
template
struct holder {
holder() = default;
constexpr ~holder() {
static_assert(sizeof(T) || true);
}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114163
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #14 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114336
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114354
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114387
Bug ID: 114387
Summary: Explicitly declared destructor makes
basic_format_context sometimes not movable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114388
Bug ID: 114388
Summary: Behavioral change of typeid on xvalues since GCC 9
Product: gcc
Version: 9.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114388
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
Moreover, perhaps we should list N3055 in the implementation status page
(https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html) since it did contain behavioral
change of typeid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114388
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So you say GCC 9+ are wrong with -std=c++98 but OK with -std=c++11 or newer
> (the default)?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114388
--- Comment #7 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Prior to DR 616 the expression (true ? WrapB().b : WrapD().d) was a prvalue
> of type B, created by copying the B (or slicing the D when the condition is
> false).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114400
Bug ID: 114400
Summary: The resolution of LWG3950 seems incorrectly
implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114400
--- Comment #4 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The resolution of LWG 3950 has not been implemented, at all.
Hmm... r14-5349 seems "implementing the resolution" per the commit message.
Perhaps I misread somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114395
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #10 from Jia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #8 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
--- Comment #5 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0)
> Since P3059R0 is closed (although I feel bad about this)
BTW, now I think this is somehow unfortunate.
P3059 behaved like a follow-up paper of P2711 IMO. Both papers effective
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89855
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #12 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104095
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108626
--- Comment #9 from Jiang An ---
See also CWG2753.
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2753.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110822
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #9 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Nikolas Klauser from comment #8)
> I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, but GCC should decide on one
> of them instead of returning different results between the type trait
> builtins and th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110854
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #10 from Jiang An ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3967
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110912
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #15 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #11)
> @jwakely, I propose that this issue should be recategorized as a compiler
> bug. (And I'm also voting effectively "NAD" on LWG3967.)
Hmm... IMO given the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110981
Bug ID: 110981
Summary: constexpr variable definition that requires dynamic
destruction should be rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106094
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #6 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100249
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #13 from Jia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110342
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111258
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
