https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 10 18:47:02 2020
New Revision: 280127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/93143 - incorrect tree sharing with constexpr.
We don't un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 10 18:46:57 2020
New Revision: 280126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/93173 - incorrect tree sharing.
My patch for 93033 wasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 93143, which changed state.
Bug 93143 Summary: [10 Regression] Multiple calls to static constexpr member
function gives wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93173
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
--- Comment #30 from Jason Merrill ---
New patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00624.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34235
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 10 18:53:17 2020
New Revision: 280128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Shorten right-shift again in C++.
Back in SVN r131862 richi removed this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kosotiro at yahoo dot gr
--- Comment #31
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
This is fixed by the patch for 40752.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 40752 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93076
Bug 93076 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93163
Bug 93163 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93077
Bug 93077 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93048
Bug 93048 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
-
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||10.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #29 from Jason Merrill ---
Fixed for GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71504
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47642&action=edit
fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Target Milestone|---
||10.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #42 from Jason Merrill ---
Implemented.
|--- |DUPLICATE
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Yes, fixed by the patch for PR 93238.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 93238 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsbj at gullik dot net
--- Comment #5
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Works with current GCC master, probably fixed by patch for bug 93033.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 93033 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 93077 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92746
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92746, which changed state.
Bug 92746 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in check_noexcept_r, at cp/except.c:1114
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92746
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92582
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #39 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47649&action=edit
patch to revert to lowering loops like the C front end
Could someone with a better sense of loop code generati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91006
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merril
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92009
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Yep, seems to have been fixed by the patch for bug 93173.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
This is a consequence of the change Jonathan cites, to treat the inherited
constructor as a user-declared constructor that prevents the implicit
declaration of a default constructor in Derived.
The differenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
||2020-01-15
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Hmm, I suppose a constant expression can have void type, but what use is it?
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92871
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93257
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93280
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 93285 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93285
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93280
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93286
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||10.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
|uses_template_parms, at |uses_template_parms, at
|cp/pt.c:10471 |cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92531
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91476
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Reduced further:
int SIZE = 100;
template
void foo(T) {
char buf[SIZE];
[&buf](auto){ }(42);
}
int main() { foo(42); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 90740, which changed state.
Bug 90740 Summary: [9/10 Regression] VLA with lamba causes an incorrect
unitialized in this function warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
What|Removed
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Same as 90732.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 90732 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Bug 70555 depends on bug 90740, which changed state.
Bug 90740 Summary: [9/10 Regression] VLA with lamba causes an incorrect
unitialized in this function warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 90740 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Yes, duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60855 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60855
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomilovanatoliy at yandex dot
ru
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 86432, which changed state.
Bug 86432 Summary: ICE on capture VLA by reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86432
What|Removed |Added
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|middle-end |c++
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 60855, which changed state.
Bug 60855 Summary: ICE provoked by a lambda using the sizeof a captured VLA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60855
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60855
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2020-01-22
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93391
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Now fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93331
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93345
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
||2020-01-24
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93377
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93400
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10 Regression
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92099
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
I see a compilation failure as expected in both pre-9.3 and 10.0. Your bug
report doesn't mention what behavior you were seeing or how that's a bug.
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merri
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90731
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on||86521
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
[Bug 86521] [8 Regression] GCC 8 selects incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
This changed from the fix for PR 86521.
As you say, deduction is first done with P = T&&, A = const Foo&, and deduces
'const Foo' for T. This produces operator const Foo&&. But according to
[over.match.ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
301 - 400 of 8895 matches
Mail list logo
