https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|10.1.0, 11.1.0, 12.0|
Keywords|needs-bisection,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.1.0, 9.1.0, 9.4.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #10 from Paul Wankadia ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> Sorry, I haven't gotten to it yet.
Was this bug fixed in GCC 7.x? :)
I ask because the workaround in RE2 is conditioned thus:
#if !defined(__clang__) && define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Sorry, I haven't gotten to it yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Carlos Tripiana Montes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tripiana at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #7 from Paul Wankadia ---
Ahh. Thank you for clarifying. I will continue to watch this bug then. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
To clarify/correct comment #5: the error in comment #4 is due to bug 71147, the
one in comment #3 ("unbekannte Feldgröße in »delete«") looks like it's the same
as in comment #0 and probably due to this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Paul Wankadia from comment #3)
> Is this likely to be the same issue even though std::atomic should have
> a trivial destructor for all T?
No, that's bug 71147, fixed in 7.0 and 6.x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #4 from Paul Wankadia ---
FWIW, using a simplified struct, Compiler Explorer (gcc.godbolt.org) with GCC
6.1 throws a different error:
#include
struct State {
int i;
std::atomic next_[];
};
Compiler output — x86 gcc 6.1 (g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Paul Wankadia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||junyer at google dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #2 from Jens Maurer ---
The whole point of flexible array members seems to be to save an allocation for
the array, with the precondition that the array size can be determined at
initialization time and stays fixed for the entire lifet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
