[Bug c++/109935] CTAD for an aggregate with a dependent base class doesn't work

2023-05-23 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109935 --- Comment #5 from Oleksandr Koval --- Right, my understanding is that it should generate hypothetical constructor like: ```cpp template struct C : public B { C(B); }; ``` and it doesn't work with braced-initializer list like in this

[Bug c++/109935] CTAD for an aggregate with a dependent base class doesn't work

2023-05-22 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109935 --- Comment #2 from Oleksandr Koval --- According to cppreference, Clang has not implemented CTAD for aggregates at all so no surprise here. I know that gcc/msvc rejects it but I don't understand why.

[Bug c++/109935] New: CTAD for an aggregate with a dependent base class doesn't work

2023-05-22 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109935 Bug ID: 109935 Summary: CTAD for an aggregate with a dependent base class doesn't work Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/109623] New: constexpr restrictions are not relaxed enough

2023-04-25 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109623 Bug ID: 109623 Summary: constexpr restrictions are not relaxed enough Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/100470] New: std::is_nothrow_move_constructible incorrect behavior for explicitly defaulted members

2021-05-07 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470 Bug ID: 100470 Summary: std::is_nothrow_move_constructible incorrect behavior for explicitly defaulted members Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 URL:

[Bug c++/99495] New: constexpr virtual destructor is used before its definition

2021-03-09 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99495 Bug ID: 99495 Summary: constexpr virtual destructor is used before its definition Product: gcc Version: 11.0 URL: https://godbolt.org/z/GGY6aa Status:

[Bug c++/99152] New: Wrong type of implicitly captured by-value unevaluated operand

2021-02-18 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99152 Bug ID: 99152 Summary: Wrong type of implicitly captured by-value unevaluated operand Product: gcc Version: 11.0 URL: https://godbolt.org/z/sYsTqa Status:

[Bug c++/99107] New: Ignored inconsistent parameter/arguments types in variadic templates

2021-02-15 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99107 Bug ID: 99107 Summary: Ignored inconsistent parameter/arguments types in variadic templates Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/99103] New: Initializer-list constructors in CTAD for vector is still wrong

2021-02-15 Thread oleksandr.koval.dev at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99103 Bug ID: 99103 Summary: Initializer-list constructors in CTAD for vector is still wrong Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal