https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
That the issue goes away when templates are not involved seems an useful hint:
are we trying to optimize too early?
Sorry, for the time being I don't feel like assigning the bug to me, I'm in the
middle of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Marek.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is already fixed in trunk: I'm adding the testcase and removingg the 10
Regression marker.
at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Not actively. I'm unassigning myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88826
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
To wit:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
index 697ed6726b8..59b43a31274 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
@@ -2543,8 +2543,7 @@ satisfy_atom (tree t, tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Related to c++/84939
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90338
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92804, which changed state.
Bug 92804 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE trying to use concept as a
nested-name-specifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92804
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92804
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seems doable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92593
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Another testcase:
template
struct ref_view
{
ref_view(T) { };
};
ref_view r{1};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92536
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92536
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Jon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92542
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92804
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
at gcc dot gnu.org |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
Summary|[9/10 Regression] if|[9 Regression] if constexpr
|constexpr no longer works |no longer works directly
|directly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
I have been making progress on this (I'm in contact with Jason about that) but
unfortunately the issue requires additional analysis for the simple reason that
if I remove/amend my r260482 changes then in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
You are right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini ---
Any news about this?
at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi Eric
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8)
> > Hi. As you can see, the patch itself seems simple, but a while ago I noticed
> > that quite a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
In principle the issue is rather simple. The
cp_parser_maybe_commit_to_declaration at the beginning of cp_parser_condition
since r260482 thinks erroneously that the just parsed HasInit must be a declaration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66999
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Jason's r272656 fixes the testcases here too. Again, I suspect that
corresponding testcases involving user-defined operators are not fixed. If
nobody beats me to it I will add fixed testcases and add an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
To wit:
bool f ()
{ enum : int a; }
we don't ICE on it but we accept it, we should reject it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
By the way, in general terms, I'm not sure I agree that a snippet which was
accepts-invalid before a given date and ice-on-invalid-code after qualifies as
a proper regression. You see, even the Bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini ---
With Jason's r272656 remains to be handled what I had as other/final4.C.
final.3.C and final5.C are fine, I'm probably going to add those two to the
testsuite.
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini ---
Let's look a bit more into this (with Jason' help)
|---
Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini ---
Unfortunately I have to re-open this: the fix, as-is, caused c++/90909.
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
Fixed by reverting completely (for the time being) the offending change.
|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90909
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think the below tweak of r271490 should be fine, it considers the bases only
when the fn isn't pure virtual:
Index: call.c
===
--- call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
I should spend again some time on this. I must say, my old idea still makes
sense to me, at some point I will probably refresh it, rebase the patch and
send it again to the mailing list: I don't think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] |[7/8/9 Regression] invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seems doable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Beautiful, thanks Martin.
at gcc dot gnu.org |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think we want something along the lines (only lightly tested so far, but
appears to work as expected):
Index: parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
If we compare the testcase to a modified version using __decltype, for the
latter by the time we reach the place in cp_parser_init_declarator which I
changed in r213952 we have already issued an "expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Oh my, let's immediately remove that little tweak, I have no idea how it could
have caused a regression but isn't worth the trouble. Maybe another time...
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Fixed for 9.2.0 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: |[9 Regression] ICE:
|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
||2019-04-22
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
I believe we can cut it short and simply do (passes testing):
Index: decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
The Component field is wrong, right?
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-04-21
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think this is also a rejects-valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P1
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 65619, which changed state.
Bug 65619 Summary: friend declaration with template template parameter not
recognized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65619
What|Removed |Added
||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 61327, which changed state.
Bug 61327 Summary: Problem with friend template object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61327
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61327
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56643
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 56643, which changed state.
Bug 56643 Summary: Failure to match noexcept specifier of friend template
function in template class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56643
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56643
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed in trunk, I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think that ultimately this boils down to this code in grokdeclarator:
if (type_was_error_mark_node && template_parm_flag)
/* FIXME we should be able to propagate the error_mark_node as is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is what I meant in code. Passes testing.
Index: semantics.c
===
--- semantics.c (revision 270062)
+++ semantics.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
There are a couple of places in semantics.c where we call
maybe_instantiate_noexcept and then, without checking that it returns true, we
proceed to use TYPE_NOTHROW_P, which expands to nothrow_spec_p. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE: |[7/8 Regression] ICE: tree
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Looking into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81506
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Martin. This reminds me that we should tell David that in some cases the
"waves" following the caret don't go on far enough. Or maybe he already knows
or maybe we should do that instead ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84598
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|vegard.nossum at gmail dot com |
Summary|[8/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85013
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] |[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84661
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] internal |[7/8 Regression] internal
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89512
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|jakub at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80559
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery, |diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80559
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78645
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed in trunk. I'm adding a testcase and removing the regression
marker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
The new ICE in Comment #6 is not fixed by Jason's patch, thus we can't close
this one, unless we file a separate bug for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85014
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] internal |[7/8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85014
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Paolo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85014
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Looking into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80604
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79651
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63508
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 7446 matches
Mail list logo
