[Bug c++/102286] [constexpr] construct_at incorrectly starts union array lifetime in some cases

2023-10-19 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d260ab0e39ea63644e3af3ab2e0db946026b5a6 commit r14-4771-g1d260ab0e39ea63644e3af3ab2e0db946026b5a6 Author: Nathaniel Shead Date:

[Bug c++/102286] [constexpr] construct_at incorrectly starts union array lifetime in some cases

2022-02-18 Thread gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286 Artur Bać changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/102286] [constexpr] construct_at incorrectly starts union array lifetime in some cases

2021-11-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- This code from PR 103295 is kinda related, which GCC, EDG and MSVC all accept, but Clang doesn't: struct S { union { char buf[8]; char* ptr; }; unsigned len; constexpr S(const char* s,

[Bug c++/102286] [constexpr] construct_at incorrectly starts union array lifetime in some cases

2021-11-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW See Also|

[Bug c++/102286] [constexpr] construct_at incorrectly starts union array lifetime in some cases

2021-09-10 Thread ldalessandro at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286 --- Comment #2 from Luke Dalessandro --- Okay, one last simplification for posterity. constexpr void bar() { union { int data[1]; } u; std::construct_at(u.data, 0); } https://godbolt.org/z/r4M3voh6W

[Bug c++/102286] [constexpr] construct_at incorrectly starts union array lifetime in some cases

2021-09-10 Thread ldalessandro at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286 --- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro --- Oops, slightly reduced testcase, don't think the struct is necessary (just part of my RL code). union U { int data[1]; constexpr U() {} // no active member }; constexpr bool