Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/651199.html
patch.
Thanks.
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:12:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The C++26 P2662R3 Pack indexing paper mentions that both GCC
> and MSVC don't handle T...[10] parameter declaration when T
>
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:48:20AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd like to ping the following patches:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
> PR111284 P2
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html
> PR114409 (part of a P1)
>
>
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
PR111284 P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html
PR114409 (part of a P1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648381.html
PR114426 P1
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
PR111284 P2 patch.
Thanks.
Jakub
Hi!
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/thread.html#645781
[PATCH] c++: Fix up parameter pack diagnostics on xobj vs. varargs functions
[PR113802]
The thread contains two possible further versions of the patch.
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches.
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name
[PR110349]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2741R3 - user-generated static_assert messages
[PR110348]
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches.
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name
[PR110349]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html
- c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342]
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches. All of them together
with the 2 updated patches posted yesterday have been
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux again yesterday.
- c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342]
Hi!
I'd like to ping the:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590276.html
PR102586 - reject __builtin_clear_padding on non-trivially-copyable types with
one exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590641.html
PR104568 - fix up constexpr evaluation
On 9/1/21 4:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:25:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patches
libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:25:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to ping the following patches
> >
> > libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html
>
On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patches
libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html
together with your
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577602.html
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patches
libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html
together with your
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577602.html
incremental patch (successfully tested on
Hi!
I'd like to ping 3 patches:
c++: Add C++20 #__VA_OPT__ support
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575355.html
libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html
libcpp, v2: Implement C++23 P1949R7 - C++
Hi!
I'd like to ping 3 patches:
c++: Add C++20 #__VA_OPT__ support
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575355.html
libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html
c++: Accept C++11 attribute-definition
On 1/5/21 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562099.html
patch.
OK, thanks.
Hi!
I'd like to ping the:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562099.html
patch.
Thanks
Jakub
Hi!
I'd like to ping
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/560372.html
- v3 of the __builtin_bit_cast (with (hopefully) all earlier feedback
incorporated).
Thanks
Jakub
Hi!
I'd like to ping the updated bit_cast patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557781.html
Thanks
Jakub
Hi!
I'd like to ping the updated bit_cast patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557781.html
Thanks
Jakub
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556370.html
PR95808 - diagnose constexpr delete [] new int; and delete new int[N];
- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556548.html
PR97388 - fix up constexpr evaluation of arguments
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-March/541542.html
P2 PR91993 patch
If you think it is too dangerous for GCC10 and should be postponed,
I can ping it after 10.1 is released, or e.g. if you think for GCC10
we should for all codes handle that way only orig_op0
Hi!
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:02:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
> Or do you want to use an additional bit for that?
>
> 2019-12-10 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR c++/59655
> * pt.c (push_tinst_level_loc): If
Hi!
I'd like to ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00581.html
PR92414, Fix error-recovery with constexpr dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00808.html
PR92458, Fix concepts vs. PCH
Thanks.
Jakub
Hi,
On 02/09/19 16:28, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
all should be more or less straightforward. I also propose to use an
additional range for that error message about constinit && constexpr
mentioned to Marek a few days ago. Tested x86_64-linux.
I'm gently piniging this very early because the
Hi,
On 23/06/19 13:58, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
here there are a couple of rather straightforward improvements in the
second half of grokdeclarator plus a check_tag_decl change consistent
with the other existing case of multiple_types_p diagnostic. Tested
x86_64-linux.
Gently pinging
Applied, thanks for your persistence.
On 5/31/19 3:06 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
another ping
On 12/05/2019 17:57, Harald van Dijk wrote:
ping again
On 26/04/2019 19:58, Harald van Dijk wrote:
ping
On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Hi,
For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function
another ping
On 12/05/2019 17:57, Harald van Dijk wrote:
ping again
On 26/04/2019 19:58, Harald van Dijk wrote:
ping
On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Hi,
For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function templates with explicitly
specified template arguments as overloaded. They are
ping again
On 26/04/2019 19:58, Harald van Dijk wrote:
ping
On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Hi,
For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function templates with explicitly
specified template arguments as overloaded. They are resolved by
resolve_nondeduced_context, which is normally
ping
On 13/04/2019 10:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Hi,
For PR60531, GCC wrongly rejects function templates with explicitly
specified template arguments as overloaded. They are resolved by
resolve_nondeduced_context, which is normally called by
cp_default_conversion through decay_conversion, but
On 12/4/18 9:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping
PR87506 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01758.html
You've acked the patch with the asserts but that FAILs as mentioned
in the above mail. The following has been bootstrapped/regtested
and works, can it be
Hi!
I'd like to ping
PR87506 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01758.html
You've acked the patch with the asserts but that FAILs as mentioned
in the above mail. The following has been bootstrapped/regtested
and works, can it be committed without those asserts and let those
be
Hi,
gently pinging this older patch of mine: given the previous
create_array_type_for_decl change, its gist should not be very
controversial...
On 06/11/18 10:01, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
when I improved create_array_type_for_decl I didn't notice that it
calls compute_array_index_type as
Hi,
gently pinging the below...
On 29/09/18 21:27, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
On 9/28/18 9:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thanks. About the location, you are certainly right, but doesn't seem
trivial. Something we can do *now* is using
declspecs->locations[ds_typedef] and
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 9/3/18 10:59 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> in this error-recovery ICE, upon the error make_constrained_auto assigns
>> error_mark_node to PLACEHOLDER_TYPE_CONSTRAINTS (type) which then causes a
>> crash later when
Hi again,
On 9/3/18 10:59 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
in this error-recovery ICE, upon the error make_constrained_auto
assigns error_mark_node to PLACEHOLDER_TYPE_CONSTRAINTS (type) which
then causes a crash later when hash_placeholder_constraint is called
on it. I think we should cope with this
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:24:02PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to ping the following C++ patches:
> >
> > - PR c++/85515
> >make range for temporaries unspellable during parsing and only
> >turn them into spellable
On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
- PR c++/3698, PR c++/86208
extern_decl_map & TREE_USED fix (plus 2 untested variants)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00084.html
ok, thanks
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following C++ patches:
- PR c++/85515
make range for temporaries unspellable during parsing and only
turn them into spellable for debug info purposes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00086.html
How
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following C++ patches:
- PR c++/85515
make range for temporaries unspellable during parsing and only
turn them into spellable for debug info purposes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00086.html
- PR c++/3698, PR c++/86208
extern_decl_map & TREE_USED
Hi!
I'd like to ping following patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02066.html
- PR83993 - fix constexpr handling of arrays with unknown bound
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02067.html
- PR83993 - don't clear TREE_CONSTANT on ADDR_EXPRs in constexpr.c
Thanks
Hi,
I'd like to gently point to two pending patches of mine:
The updated fix for PR 81055 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid
initializer for array new")
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01428.html
and also
PR 78344 ("ICE on invalid c++ code (tree check: expected
Hi!
I'd like to ping the:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01499.html
- PR83556 fix replace_placeholders
patch.
Thanks.
Jakub
Hi Jason,
On 13/12/2017 23:27, Jason Merrill wrote:
These two don't match:
+ When initializing a temporary to be bound to the first
+ parameter of a constructor where the parameter is of type
+/* Return true if current_function_decl is a constructor
+ and its first argument is a
On 12/12/2017 03:20 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 15/11/2017 00:54, Mukesh Kapoor wrote:
Hi,
This patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235
For the following test case
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
explicit Foo(const Foo& aOther) {}
};
struct Bar {
Foo m[1];
};
Hi,
On 15/11/2017 00:54, Mukesh Kapoor wrote:
Hi,
This patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235
For the following test case
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
explicit Foo(const Foo& aOther) {}
};
struct Bar {
Foo m[1];
};
void test() {
Bar a;
Bar b = a;
}
the
Hi!
I'd like to ping two patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02521.html
PR c++/83205 - diagnose invalid std::tuple_size::value for structured
bindings; the follow-up with plural spelling is approved
already
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 C++2A patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01235.html
P0683R1 - default member initializers for bit-fields
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01237.html
P0704R1 - fixing const-qualified pointers to members
Thanks
Jakub
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00937.html
- fix compile time hog in replace_placeholders
patch.
Thanks
Jakub
On 09/15/2017 05:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
gently pinging this.
On 16/06/2017 15:47, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
submitter and Manuel analyzed this a while ago and came to the
conclusion - which I think is still valid vs the current working draft
- that strictly speaking this kind of
Hi,
gently pinging this.
On 16/06/2017 15:47, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
submitter and Manuel analyzed this a while ago and came to the
conclusion - which I think is still valid vs the current working draft
- that strictly speaking this kind of code violates [dcl.dcl], thus a
pedwarn seems
Hi,
On 14/07/2017 19:51, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 07/14/2017 01:32 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
While working on the bug I also noticed that we can simplify a bit
the code
generating the implicit deduction guides: if I'm not mistaken, when
we pass
types as first argument of build_deduction_guide
Hi,
gently pingning this:
On 02/06/2017 10:35, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
a while ago Manuel noticed that printing 'typename' in error messages
about missing 'typename' can be confusing. That seems easy to fix, in
fact we already handle correctly a similar situation in
grokdeclarator. Tested
Hi,
gently pinging this...
On 23/03/2017 20:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
this ICE on invalid code isn't a regression, thus a patch probably
doesn't qualify for Stage 4, but IMHO I made good progress on it and
I'm sending what I have now anyway... The ICE happens during error
recovery after
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 C++ patches:
- P1 PR79232 - ICEs and wrong-code with COMPOUND_EXPR on lhs of assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02341.html
- P1 PR79288 - wrong default TLS model for __thread static data members
Hi!
I'd like to ping the PR77830 fix for out of bounds constexpr stores:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01319.html
Jakub
On 12/15/2016 07:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I don't think so. complete_type (error_mark_node) returns error_mark_node,
and COMPLETE_TYPE_P (error_mark_node) is invalid (should fail TYPE_CHECK in
checking compiler).
I can write it as
inst = complete_type (inst);
if (inst ==
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:14:15AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to ping the
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00698.html
> > P0490R0 GB 20: decomposition declaration should commit to tuple
> >
On 12/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00698.html
P0490R0 GB 20: decomposition declaration should commit to tuple interpretation
early
+ if (inst == error_mark_node)
+return NULL_TREE;
This check is unneeded,
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00698.html
P0490R0 GB 20: decomposition declaration should commit to tuple interpretation
early
patch.
Thanks
Jakub
Hi!
I'd like to ping 3 patches from a week ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01995.html
- PR77375 - wrong-code with mutable members in base classes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01998.html
- PR77338 - fix constexpr ICE on PARM_DECL with incomplete type
On 04/10/2016 11:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 04/09/2016 06:28 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
>> On 04/08/2016 08:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The name for new option "-Wduplicate-decl-specifier" and wording was
chosen to match the same option in Clang.
>>>
>>> My version of Clang also
On 01/11/2016 04:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:44:46PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/11/2016 03:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:44:46PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 03:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>Hi!
> >>
> >>I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html
> >>patch, fixing
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:04:16PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >You mean:
> >
> >--- gcc/cp/pt.c.jj 2016-01-05 16:46:02.891896607 +0100
> >+++ gcc/cp/pt.c 2016-01-11 21:33:09.065184178 +0100
> >@@ -12207,6 +12207,8 @@ tsubst_decl (tree t, tree args, tsubst_f
> >
On 01/11/2016 03:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html
patch, fixing ICE with GNU __thread vars in templates.
Can't you unconditionally clear
OK.
Jason
On 01/09/16 02:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html
patch, fixing ICE with GNU __thread vars in templates.
Can't you unconditionally clear DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO regardless of local_p?
if
Hi!
I'd like to ping the PR c++/66808, PR c++/69000
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02019.html
patch, fixing ICE with GNU __thread vars in templates.
Thanks
Jakub
On 28 December 2014 at 20:21, Ville Voutilainen
ville.voutilai...@gmail.com wrote:
Any comments on this?
Re-ping. :) The original message is
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01614.html
On 19 December 2014 at 09:21, Ville Voutilainen
ville.voutilai...@gmail.com wrote:
Tested on
Any comments on this?
On 19 December 2014 at 09:21, Ville Voutilainen
ville.voutilai...@gmail.com wrote:
Tested on Linux-x64.
/cp
2014-12-19 Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilai...@gmail.com
Reject trailing return type for an operator auto().
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Reject
Hi all, hi Jason,
On 08/24/2014 12:11 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg01709.html
Today, I picked this unreviewed patch prepared by Manuel back in August
and trivially completed it by adjusting the testcases (all the tweaks
seem the expected
... forgot to attach the complete patch ;)
Paolo.
Index: cp/cp-tree.h
===
--- cp/cp-tree.h(revision 215710)
+++ cp/cp-tree.h(working copy)
@@ -5418,7 +5418,6 @@ extern const char
OK.
Jason
I don't want to cause you more work Paolo, but perhaps this should be
documented in https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html. ?
Something like:
* Excessive template instantiation depth is now a fatal error. This
prevents excessive diagnostics that usually do not help to identify
the problem.
Hi,
On 09/30/2014 04:51 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I don't want to cause you more work Paolo, but perhaps this should be
documented in https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html. ?
Something like:
* Excessive template instantiation depth is now a fatal error. This
prevents excessive
Hi,
assuming I didn't miss anything (I'm still catching up with my emails),
I'd like to ping the below. Thanks!
Paolo.
///
On 12/10/2013 01:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
as far as I can see, this bug asks for the implementation of
Core/1442, thus don't do a special
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01166.html
Thanks!
Paolo.
Hi,
pinging this patch of mine, sent beginning of September:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01435.html
Just checked that it still applies cleanly and passes testing.
Thanks!
Paolo.
Hi,
I'd like to ping this recent patch of mine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02509.html
Thanks!
Paolo.
Hi,
I'm pinging this patchlet:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01013.html
For sure not an high priority issue, neither I can say to fully
understand whether in C++ we can and should have the exact same
semantics of the __transparent_union__ attribute in C, but I think that
81 matches
Mail list logo
