|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-12
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||5.0
Version|unknown |4.9.1
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-12
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever
||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63604
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63192
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Reduced:
template struct same {static constexpr bool value = false;};
template struct same {static constexpr bool value = true;};
int main() {
float x, &r = x;
[=] { // x and r are not capture
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to work||4.8.2
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-13
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to work||4.8.2, 4.9.0, 5.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62274
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to work||5.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.9.1, 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62134
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
A reduced testcase would be nice.
,
||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to work||5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The current trunk accepts the testcase (and implements C++14 relaxed
constexpr). Shouldn't this be closed?
||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Clang also silently accepts the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61953
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Clang accepts the code.
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|4.10.0 |5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Clang accepts the code.
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to work||5.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
,
||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Known to work||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Current trunk does not ICE. Please close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Clang accepts the code.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59988
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Clang rejects the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61670
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
This doesn't crash on my local compiler, which is 20141212.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54442
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Clang rejects the code.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
||2014-12-14
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0
,
||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The problem doesn't seem to occur on Linux-x64. Kai, can you take a look?
ement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
In num_put::_M_insert_float, __convert_from_v can fail, leading into a __widen
being called with a negative size. This may happen with a C li
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
CC: jason at redhat dot com
#include
constexpr int max(std::initializer_list ints
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
This compiles fine:
#include
class foo { std::chrono::high_resolution_clock clock;};
static_assert(!decltype(foo::clock)::is_steady, "xxx");
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64335
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Pardon that, the latter example contains remnants of other experiments. Here's
a simplified version, (not that it really should matter :) )
class foo {
class bar {};
};
int main()
{
decltype (fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #11 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Reduced further:
class base
{
protected:
typedef int type;
};
template
class derive: public base
{
public:
void foo()
{
struct f_t {
f_t(base::type a) {}
};
}
};
int main()
{
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-19
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||5.0
--- Comment #6 from
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-12-30
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
CC: jason at redhat dot com
#include
template
constexpr bool IsType = true;
template
struct X {
ty
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
CC: jason at redhat dot com
template struct my_queue {
void push(T){ }
void ice(){ trav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64466
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64382
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64382
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64455
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Btw, this problem prevents using the C++14 trait aliases with the forthcoming
trait variable templates as they were intended, because
template enable_if_t> f() {}
is also erroneously rejected with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64455
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Reduced to avoid using type_traits:
template
constexpr bool IsType = true;
template struct Test
{
};
template
struct Test
{
typedef T type;
};
template
struct X {
typedef typename Test,T
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
CC: jason at redhat dot com
struct X {const int val;};
static_assert(__is_trivially_copyable(const int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64489
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64489
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
Very simple test:
enum E { a, b = true ? 1 : ((E)a, 0) };
enumcrash.cpp:1:32: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
enum E { a, b = true ? 1 : ((E)a, 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59838
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Ok, but the patch needs to be massaged a bit to give an error in the case where
the underlying type is not set, if the complain flag has error set. I can do
that, seems simple enough.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59838
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Ah, of course, it will end up returning error_mark_node and then other
machinery reports the error. Ok, looks quite good. Can you post it to
gcc-patches, then?
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
template void f(T&& t, int i, U&&... u) {}
template void g(T&&... t) {g(t..., 5, t...);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
Test:
template struct mypair {
mypair(T, U) {}
};
template auto my_make_pair(T t, U u)
{
return mypair(t, u);
}
template struct S {
mypair get_pair() noexcept {
return my_make_pair
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Well, no - the error that 4.7 gives is caused by my using a C++14 deduced
return type for a function there. 4.9 supports those with --std=c++1y.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
So, to clarify, this is not accepts-invalid, nor is it a 4.7->4.9 regression
with regards to whether the function should be accepted. If I change the test
to
be purely C++11, it ICEs on 4.7 and 4.8 as well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51424
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> GCC 4.9.0 has been released
Well, shouldn't this bug be closed, then? The patch Paolo wrote was applied and
shipped in 4.9.0, so this is already in, no need t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51424
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
My 2 cents is to open a separate bug if we want diagnostics for the more
elaborate self-delegating cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> Ville, has EWG taken a look at this issue? I'm sorry this didn't come up in
Not yet. The handling of Extension-status Core Issues was more or less
on hold w
nt: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
Testcase:
int main()
{
auto x = [y = 5](){};
auto z = x.y;
}
The member should not be usable. The most recent WP says
"An init-capture behaves as if it declares and explicitly captures a varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
--- Comment #11 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10)
Looks somewhat similar, but not identical. In this particular
bug it doesn't seem to be a case of explicitness being the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #12)
Ah, indeed, comment 2 has an explicit diagnostic as well. The patch
looks reasonable (to my taste the condition doesn't, but that's another
matter), so I rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61133
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch is in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00656.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
It seems that 58972 is a duplicate, and is fixed by the same patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
[ville@localhost ~]$ g++ --std=c++11 -c dan.cpp
dan.cpp: In instantiation of ‘struct derive::foo(base::type) [with T = char;
base::type = int]::f_t’:
dan.cpp:18:5: required from ‘void derive::foo(base:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
So, correction, the original testcase in 58972 is fixed by this patch, but the
other testcase in it ICEs the compiler. That testcase is not really related to
the issue the patch fixes, or the patch itself
401 - 500 of 554 matches
Mail list logo
