https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107198
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111357
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Summary|[12/13 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106890
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> BTW, shall size() and data() be manifestly constant-evaluated?
> I think it doesn't satisfy any of the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#19
> bullets (unlike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107198
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104264
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109887
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yedeng.yd at linux dot
alibaba.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116223
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116223
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
We're effectively rejecting this under
https://eel.is/c++draft/temp#deduct.type-20
If P has a form that contains , and if the type of i differs from the type
of the corresponding template parameter of the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94568
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94568
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116223
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116071
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116070
Bug 116070 depends on bug 116071, which changed state.
Bug 116071 Summary: [14 Regression] Non-inline destructor for class template
rejected with -std=gnu++14 -fconcepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116071
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
Bug ID: 116276
Summary: [14/15 regression] multiple inheritance CTAD
regression with -std=c++23
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116276
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116375
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110881
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105497
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valentyn.pavliuchenko@gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81665
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107919
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Ah, that's because __write_padded isn't inline; -fimplicit-constexpr only
applies to inlines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87588
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Iain, do you want to attach your WIP here so someone else can finish it up? Or
do you expect to finish it within the next month?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11/12 Regression] co_await
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Assignee|jason at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101869
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105809
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69410
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69410
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Zopolis0 from comment #8)
Thanks for your work on this bug!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109172
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108975
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109172
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106890
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108795
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109241
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
No templates (so it's ambiguous, but the problem is the same):
struct B { int a; };
struct C {
explicit C (int);
C& operator= (B);
C& operator= (const C&);
};
void f(C x)
{
x = { 42 };
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107163
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 54739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54739&action=edit
possible patch
An implementation of my guess at the clang rule, if we end up wanting to go
that way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105996
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105481
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109321
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105452
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107897
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105221
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Reduced:
void (*p)(int) = [](auto) noexcept {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105221
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107484
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 54806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54806&action=edit
patch to allow with -fpermissive
Here's an (untested) possible approach to that. I'm about to be away for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-03-24 00:00:00 |2023-04-13
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109514
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Jason, any thoughts on why we for build_type_attribute_qual_variant call
> build_distinct_type_copy rather than build_variant_type_copy
That does seem weird.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109514
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109357
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109357
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105406
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108099
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|13.0|
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106893
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.0, 13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108179
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to stu t from comment #6)
> Thank you for looking into this! :)
You're welcome! I'm currently leaning toward backporting this to 12.4 rather
than 12.3, but am interested in your thoughts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109608
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109608
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109678
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69836
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109678
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109649
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109649
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Summary|[13/14 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52339
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> in main it doesn't, as the nop is stripped and the COMPONENT_REF is
> TREE_READONLY and !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS.
> tree.cc (save_expr) documents that:
>Constants,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109723
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-04
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109723
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 109723 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109645
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90390
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114460
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114840
Bug ID: 114840
Summary: [meta-bug] template template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114840
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||c++-ttp
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114841
Bug ID: 114841
Summary: [P0522R0] partial ordering of template template
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
901 - 1000 of 1570 matches
Mail list logo