https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115099
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115059
--- Comment #2 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I don't want to change anything in libstdc++ here. Either
> std::is_convertible should be sufficient to check "convertible to"
> constraints, or "convertible to"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115059
Bug ID: 115059
Summary: Constraints/Mandates on the comparison operators of
std::optional and std::variant are overly strict
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114388
--- Comment #10 from Jiang An ---
Broken down into two smaller examples:
https://godbolt.org/z/YhK7PqE6s
```
#include
#include
int main() {
struct B {
B() {}
virtual ~B() { std::puts("C++11"); }
};
struct C { B b; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114891
Bug ID: 114891
Summary: Unconditional use of
std::is_pointer_interconvertible_base_of_v in
makes the header unusable with Clang 18
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114866
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114844
Bug ID: 114844
Summary: A trivial but noexcept(false) destructor is
incorrectly considered non-throwing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114817
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
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
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
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
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
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
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
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=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=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 #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
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=114387
Bug ID: 114387
Summary: Explicitly declared destructor makes
basic_format_context sometimes not movable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
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
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
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
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
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=114076
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
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
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=113782
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
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
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
> >
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
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
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
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
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:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113563
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113638
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
> The following code snippet is incorrectly processed since C++13.
Typo: this should be "since GCC13".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113638
Bug ID: 113638
Summary: Array bounds of variable templates are not correctly
deduced from initializers since GCC13
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113522
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113470
Bug ID: 113470
Summary: Should std::tuple_size be a complete type?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113141
Bug ID: 113141
Summary: ICE on conversion to reference in aggregate
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103183
--- Comment #5 from Jiang An ---
Seems fixed together by commit
r14-6753-g8dfc52a75d4d6c8be1c61b4aa831b1812b14a10e.
https://godbolt.org/z/on3K451a5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113047
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111948
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112439
Bug ID: 112439
Summary: Modification of a member overlapping with a
[[no_unique_address]] member in the constructor is
incorrectly rejected
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110854
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #2)
> The constructor of the internal __platform_semaphore class currently calls
> sem_init, which make it incompatible with constexpr...
It seems doable to make the ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94264
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111723
Bug ID: 111723
Summary: #pragma GCC system_header suppresses errors from
narrowing conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #6 from Jiang An ---
It seems that deleted operator() overloads in the return type of std::not_fn is
only necessary since C++20. The changes were made in P0356R5.
In C++17, the return type was nearly fully specified and didn't have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111511
--- Comment #5 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Jiang An from comment #0)
> > > Not sure whether this should be WONTFIX since the implementation is
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111512
Bug ID: 111512
Summary: GCC's __builtin_memcpy can trigger ADL
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111511
Bug ID: 111511
Summary: Incorrect ADL in std::to_array in GCC 11/12/13
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106547
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Valentine Anderson from comment #2)
> From what I understand, the key feature of trivially copyable types is that
> memcpy‘ing an object of such a type onto another object is equivalent to a
> copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106547
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111358
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
Related issues:
Monadic operations of expected are not ADL-proof per the uses of **this in
[expected.object.monadic]. However, currently implementations make them
ADL-proof by directly naming the union member,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111358
Bug ID: 111358
Summary: libstdc++'s optional::and_then and optional::transform
are not ADL-proof
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111299
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111258
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
I've reduced the example and filed Bug 111284.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111284
Bug ID: 111284
Summary: Some passing-by-value parameters are miscompiled since
GCC 9
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #3 from
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
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
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
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
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
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=110912
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
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=110854
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
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
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
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=104095
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110661
Bug ID: 110661
Summary: Weird handing for deleting a void* pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110581
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
> We should say something about `[[noreturn]]` insead superfluous `volatile`.
should be
> We should say something about `[[noreturn]]` instead of superfluous
> `volatile`.
Sorry for copy-pasta...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110581
Bug ID: 110581
Summary: Weird error message for returning from a [[noreturn]]
function in constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109941
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109922
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
> setfill and its friends
I was wrong. Only setfill itself is so relaxed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109922
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109459
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109383
Bug ID: 109383
Summary: [QoI] std::type_index::operator<=> should not call
__builtin_strcmp twice
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109243
Bug ID: 109243
Summary: Side cast of pointer-to-member with UB is incorrectly
accepted in constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109203
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #6 from
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
> >
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
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #12 from
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=95701
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
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
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
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 -
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
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
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
