[Bug c++/116052] [15 Regression] ICE in diagnostic_context::diagnostic_impl

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Thank for the bug report. (In reply to Curdeius Curdeius from comment #0) > Source code (need to

[Bug tree-optimization/110498] Spurious warnings stringop-overflow and array-bounds copying data as bytes into vector::reserve

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-07-22

[Bug c++/116015] ICE in replace_placeholders_r for simple default member initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116015 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- (Not a regression; previously we rejected the code.)

[Bug c++/116015] ICE in replace_placeholders_r for simple default member initializer

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Last reconfirmed||2024-07-20 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r5-4459-g3e605b20a0c804

[Bug c++/29834] g++ thinks it is a declaration when it cannot be

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek --- I think I have a patch. dg.exp and old-deja.exp passed so far.

[Bug c++/58074] [C++11][DR 1333] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/85723] [C++17][DR 1496] __is_trivial intrinsic fails with no trivial non-deleted default c'tor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/108769] [C++20] __is_trivial returns true even if a default constructor's constraints are unsatisfied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108769 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/115987] False "possibly dangling reference" false positive when having an extra template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987 --- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek --- But is unwrap_1 called in such a way that 'r' binds to a temporary?

[Bug c++/115987] False "possibly dangling reference" false positive when having an extra template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/115987] False "possibly dangling reference" false positive when having an extra template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987 --- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Dan Urosu from comment #11) > 1) "We don't analyze the body of the function" > unwrap_1 and unwrap_2 are functionally equivalent. Yet only unwrap_2 > triggers the warning. But that's my

[Bug c++/115987] False "possibly dangling reference" false positive when having an extra template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Dan Urosu from comment #8) > Why does not warn for unwarp_1? > The mere addition of an unused template parameter triggers this warning. We don't analyze the body of the function (which may

[Bug c++/115987] False "possibly dangling reference" false positive when having an extra template parameter

||2024-07-18 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- I'll be fixing Jon's testcase.

[Bug c++/115986] [14/15 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2644 involving consteval user-defined uint128 literals

| Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Started with my: commit

[Bug c++/115865] [14/15 Regression] ICE with auto/std::initializer_list variable definition with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug sanitizer/108256] Missing integer overflow instrumentation when assignment LHS is narrow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108256 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- *** Bug 115971 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug sanitizer/115971] [12 Regression] Signed integer overflow check missing

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed by r13-4988 so I think it's a dup of bug 108256. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 108256 ***

[Bug c++/71469] Print possible override candidates when a method is marked override but doesn't override

Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Thanks. Assigning to Michael then.

[Bug c++/115900] [14 Regression] constexpr object modification during construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[14 Regression] constexpr

[Bug c++/115964] GCC accepts invalid program with explicit object member function overloads

||2024-07-17 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed, I guess. I hope there isn't a DR changing this to be well-formed that I missed :). Thanks

[Bug c++/115900] [14/15 Regression] constexpr object modification during construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115900] [14/15 Regression] constexpr object modification during construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- This is beginning to make sense to me now. Pre-r14-409: we're evaluating the call to C::C(), which is in the body of B::B(), which is the body of D::D(): C::C ((struct C *) this, NON_LVALUE_EXPR <0>)

[Bug c++/115900] [14/15 Regression] constexpr object modification during construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- What changed is the initializer we generate for 'd'. It used to be: d = {.D.2656={.a={.data=0}}} but now it is: D::D ((struct D *) ) The second one causes trouble because we evaluate ((struct A

[Bug c++/115940] ICE: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have translation_unit_decl in maybe_dummy_object, at cp/tree.cc:4379

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115940 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115940] ICE: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have translation_unit_decl in maybe_dummy_object, at cp/tree.cc:4379

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115940 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115900] [14/15 Regression] constexpr object modification during construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Reverting r14-409 fixes the problem on trunk, so that change must mean something. I added the modifying-const-objects constexpr checking, so maybe I should poke more at this.

[Bug c++/115900] [14/15 Regression] constexpr object modification during construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant expression"

expression"|is not allowed in a ||constant expression" Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115645] [11/12/13/14 Regression] new S[1][1]() requires non-explicit default ctor since r11-3092

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Sorry :(. I'll take a look.

[Bug c++/115865] [14/15 Regression] ICE with auto/std::initializer_list variable definition with -fsanitize=address

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115865] [14/15 Regression] ICE with auto/std::initializer_list variable definition with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Maybe (untested): --- a/gcc/tree-eh.cc +++ b/gcc/tree-eh.cc @@ -1703,8 +1703,8 @@ lower_try_finally (struct leh_state *state, gtry *tp) ndests += this_tf.may_return; ndests += this_tf.may_throw; -

[Bug c++/115865] [14/15 Regression] ICE with auto/std::initializer_list variable definition with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- If the GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY doesn't always have to be present, albeit empty, then I suppose the best fix would be to get rid of the empty finally block so that we don't have to check in many spots that it's

[Bug c++/115865] [14/15 Regression] ICE with auto/std::initializer_list variable definition with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115865 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Previously, lower_try_finally got: try { .ASAN_MARK (UNPOISON, , 12); x = {}; x._M_len = 3; x._M_array = } finally { .ASAN_MARK (POISON, , 12); } but now we remove the

[Bug c++/115865] [14/15 Regression] ICE with auto/std::initializer_list variable definition with -fsanitize=address

||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Priority|P3 |P2 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Reduced: ``` typedef decltype(sizeof(char)) size_t; namespace std { template class

[Bug c++/107186] GCC rejects use of static constexpr member function in noexcept complete-class context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107186 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- So it follows that this doesn't work either: ``` struct A { constexpr static bool func() { return true; } constexpr static bool i = func(); }; ```

[Bug c++/107186] GCC rejects use of static constexpr member function in noexcept complete-class context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107186 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/107256] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Contradictory circular noexcept-specifier is accepted

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/115642] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in c_expr_sizeof_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115642 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/115549] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl common’ structure, have ‘error_mark’ in common_handle_aligned_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.cc:2665 with invalid aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115549 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/115645] [11/12/13/14 Regression] new S[1][1]() requires non-explicit default ctor since r11-3092

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115645 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12/13/14/15 Regression] |[11/12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug c++/115469] [14 Regression] ICE :tree check expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in poplevel_named_label_1, at cpdecl.cc579

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115469 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/115716] [11/12/13/14/15 regression] internal compiler error: tree check: accessed elt 2 of 'tree_vec' with 1 elts in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16364

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115716 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- I suppose the problem is that we do not detect too many template parameters here: template struct S { template struct N { }; }; template<> template // bad struct S::N { }; while clang++ says:

[Bug c++/115430] Cannot take address of template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed on trunk. I think I'll backport the fix to 14 as well.

[Bug c++/104392] Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison of unsigned bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/94058] defaulted three way comparison operator defined as deleted when a member is a small bitfield of long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/66564] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE on explicit instantiation of nested template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66564 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Patch submission for r0-123991: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2013-June/365035.html

[Bug c++/66564] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE on explicit instantiation of nested template class

|P2 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r0-123991-g4ca5c232d025bf: commit 4ca5c232d025bf96bd70127dcb5940c4b227cbef Author: Jason Merrill Date: Thu Jun 20 14:33:02 2013 -0400 pt.c

[Bug c++/115716] [11/12/13/14/15 regression] internal compiler error: tree check: accessed elt 2 of 'tree_vec' with 1 elts in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16364

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115716 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug c++/104392] Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison of unsigned bit field

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2024-06-28 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug c++/94058] defaulted three way comparison operator defined as deleted when a member is a small bitfield of long type.

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/94058] defaulted three way comparison operator defined as deleted when a member is a small bitfield of long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Right, I need to handle "the source is a bit-field whose width w is less than that of its type" as well; is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type doesn't do that. Thanks!

[Bug c++/94058] defaulted three way comparison operator defined as deleted when a member is a small bitfield of long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- This may implement that DR: --- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc @@ -1012,6 +1012,14 @@ check_narrowing (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t complain, if (TREE_CODE (ftype) ==

[Bug c++/94058] defaulted three way comparison operator defined as deleted when a member is a small bitfield of long type.

|1 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Thanks for the reference, I've updated https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html So confirmed.

[Bug c++/115583] [14/15 Regression] C++23: Call to consteval function in `if consteval` immediate function context rejected at -O1 since r14-4140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115583 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug c/115549] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl common’ structure, have ‘error_mark’ in common_handle_aligned_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.cc:2665 with invalid aligned attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115549 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/109521] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Checking ICE with canonical types differ for identical types ‘UBYTE [7]’ {aka ‘unsigned char [7]’} and ‘unsigned char [7]’ since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109521 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115639] Large variations in compilation times involving static_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- With static_assert(0==big_calc());// (1) we evaluate the big_calc call twice. Once, while parsing the static_assert: #0 cxx_eval_call_expression (ctx=0x7fffc3e0, t=, lval=vc_prvalue,

[Bug c++/115639] Large variations in compilation times involving static_assert

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Reproduced: $ time ./cc1plus -quiet 115639.C -fconstexpr-ops-limit=$((2**31-1)) -fconstexpr-loop-limit

[Bug c++/115572] ICE: in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.cc:28020

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-06-26 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Even gcc 8 ICEs.

[Bug c++/115557] Invalid NSDMI accepted for templates classes for a aggregate that binds to a temp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115557 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115665] gcc complains about bad CTAD that actually does not exist in template derived class with default argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115665 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug c++/115664] -Wnonnull-compare breaks templated methods

||2024-06-26 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Please include full preprocessed source.

[Bug c++/115657] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in tsubst_enum/tsubst_expr during template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115657 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- tsubst_expr gets TARGET_EXPR . We should probably have created an IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR for it.

[Bug c++/115657] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in tsubst_enum/tsubst_expr during template instantiation

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r12-6821: commit 053bcc97f4a59e3f2811b8a1edf60fd733a580a0 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Thu Jan 20 05:45:02 2022 -0500 c++: constexpr and -fno-elide-constructors [PR101072]

[Bug c++/115656] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Templated ctor use rejected in non-deduced context if class template has template template parameter

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org, ||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2024-06-26 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|needs-bisection | Priority

[Bug c++/115476] [13/14 Regression] __has_unique_object_representation ICE with array of uninstantiated type of unknown bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] |[13/14 Regression]

[Bug c++/115430] Cannot take address of template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115616] c++20: Friend-injecting a template function causes an ICE if you inject after trying to instantiate that function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115616 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/115644] [gcc][trunk] ICE if redeclare a variable with different type

||2024-06-25 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed.

[Bug middle-end/115641] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] GCC crashes on function has attribute `__attribute__((const))`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115641 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/115641] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] GCC crashes on function has attribute `__attribute__((const))`

||`__attribute__((const))` Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Target Milestone|--- |11.5 Priority|P3 |P2 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot

[Bug c++/115425] [13/14 regression] ICE: tree check: expected type_pack_expansion or expr_pack_expansion, have error_mark in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.cc:13778

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115425 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/115501] [13/14 Regression] ICE: in build_call_a with dynamic_cast after invalid definition of __cxxabiv1::__dynamic_cast since r13-3299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] ICE: |[13/14 Regression] ICE: in

[Bug c/115642] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in c_expr_sizeof_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115642 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115645] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] new S[1][1]() requires non-explicit default ctor since r11-3092

|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/115558] Trivial noexcept(false) default constructor does not make value initialization potentially throwing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115558 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115561] [14/15 Regression] ICE checking constraints when a local class is involved since r14-9659

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115583] [14/15 Regression] C++23: Call to consteval function in `if consteval` immediate function context rejected at -O1 since r14-4140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115583 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/85723] [C++17][DR 1496] __is_trivial intrinsic fails with no trivial non-deleted default c'tor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/58074] [C++11][DR 1333] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/108769] [C++20] __is_trivial returns true even if a default constructor's constraints are unsatisfied

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/96288] [DR 1734] __is_trivial and __is_trivially_copyable fails for deleted members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96288 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever

[Bug c++/85723] [C++17][DR 1496] __is_trivial intrinsic fails with no trivial non-deleted default c'tor

||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115476] [13/14/15 Regression] __has_unique_object_representation ICE with array of uninstantiated type of unknown bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654985.html but I'm not changing __has_trivial_destructor in that patch. That and its kin are extensions:

[Bug c++/115501] [13/14/15 Regression] ICE: in build_call_a with dynamic_cast after invalid definition of __cxxabiv1::__dynamic_cast since r13-3299

at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Good point, I'll test that.

[Bug c++/115377] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Invalid typename with non nested-name-specifier accepted in specific contexts since r5-2683

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115377 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Patch thread: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2014-August/395789.html The patch doesn't seem to match what was actually committed?

[Bug c++/115501] [13/14/15 Regression] ICE: in build_call_a with dynamic_cast after invalid definition of __cxxabiv1::__dynamic_cast since r13-3299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/108753] '-Wduplicated-cond' doesn't diagnose duplicated subexpressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108753 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Making this work should hopefully be fairly easy: add a tree walk on the operands of || and && and compare them to the previous condition?

[Bug c/67819] -Wduplicated-cond should take macros into account

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67819 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- -Wduplicated-branches has the same problem, see .

[Bug testsuite/115443] aarch64: Test gcc.dg/vect/pr99102.c FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115443 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- This was with GCC 14 but I bet trunk behaves the same.

[Bug c/115488] __has_include with empty filename

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115488 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/115469] [14/15 Regression] ICE :tree check expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in poplevel_named_label_1, at cpdecl.cc579

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115469 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- *** Bug 115472 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/115472] ICE :tree check expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in check_goto_1, at cpdecl.cc4007

|--- |DUPLICATE CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Looks like a dup of bug 115469. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 115469 ***

[Bug c++/115469] [14/15 Regression] ICE :tree check expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in poplevel_named_label_1, at cpdecl.cc579

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115469 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115425] [13/14/15 regression] ICE: tree check: expected type_pack_expansion or expr_pack_expansion, have error_mark in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.cc:13778

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115425 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115476] [13/14/15 Regression] __has_unique_object_representation ICE with array of uninstantiated type of unknown bound

, ||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Keywords|needs-bisection | --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r13-25: commit fcff9a464cc10eadc60616990c128717ba5ac9eb Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Mar 23 12:25:18 2022 -0400 c

[Bug c++/115425] [13/14/15 regression] ICE: tree check: expected type_pack_expansion or expr_pack_expansion, have error_mark in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.cc:13778

|1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Target Milestone|--- |13.4 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r13-272-gdc6c96f0707aba: commit

[Bug c++/115476] [13/14/15 Regression] __has_unique_object_representation ICE with array of uninstantiated type of unknown bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Aha, so static_assert(__has_unique_object_representations(Foo<0>[])); is valid and should be treated just like static_assert(__has_unique_object_representations(Foo<0>)); but class Foo;

[Bug c++/115476] [13/14/15 Regression] __has_unique_object_representation ICE with array of uninstantiated type of unknown bound

||ice-on-invalid-code Priority|P3 |P2 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/115476] [13/14/15 Regression] __has_unique_object_representation ICE with array of uninstantiated type of unknown bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115476 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- In check_trait_type, we do if (kind == 1 && TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE && !TYPE_DOMAIN (type)) return true; // Array of unknown bound. Don't care about completeness. and then end up crashing in

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >