https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113340
Bug ID: 113340
Summary: ICE when an explicit object parameter is attempted to
be used in a destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98500
friedkeenan at protonmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||friedkeenan at protonm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899
--- Comment #6 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com ---
Well it says "being destroyed" not "already destroyed", because the object is
currently being destroyed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899
--- Comment #4 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Just compile your testcase with additional
> -Dconstexpr= -Dconsteval= -D'static_assert(x)='
> to see how it is compiled, there is that infini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899
--- Comment #2 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Why do you think this is a compiler bug?
> If you delete this, you invoke the destructor and then the operator delete,
> so when you do this i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102899
Bug ID: 102899
Summary: Performing `delete this` within destructor in constant
evaluation results in infinitely recursive error
message
Product: gcc
Version: 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102670
Bug ID: 102670
Summary: Erroneous "missing template arguments" message for
wrapper of ADL function template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102167
Bug ID: 102167
Summary: Constexpr virtual destructors confuse memory leak
detection during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102123
Bug ID: 102123
Summary: Internal Compiler Error occurs during template
deduction in use with templates as template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102090
--- Comment #8 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com ---
Sorry for wasting your time with this bug report. It just didn't make sense to
me why placement-new couldn't be constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102090
--- Comment #4 from friedkeenan at protonmail dot com ---
I think you're correct. That's really strange, but I guess that's what
std::construct_at is for? But that also confuses me, how is GCC's
implementation of std::construct_at working if plac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102090
Bug ID: 102090
Summary: Placement-new is not constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
12 matches
Mail list logo