public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/108099] [12/13 Regression] ICE with type alias with `signed __int128_t` Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:05:29 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-108099-4-cH0IPPXZjt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-108099-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108099 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Though, on // PR c++/108099 // { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } // { dg-options "" } using u128 = unsigned __int128_t; using s128 = signed __int128_t; template <typename T, T v> struct integral_constant { static constexpr T value = v; }; typedef integral_constant <bool, false> false_type; typedef integral_constant <bool, true> true_type; template <class T, class U> struct is_same : false_type {}; template <class T> struct is_same <T, T> : true_type {}; static_assert (is_same <__int128, s128>::value, ""); static_assert (is_same <signed __int128, s128>::value, ""); static_assert (is_same <__int128_t, s128>::value, ""); static_assert (is_same <unsigned __int128, u128>::value, ""); static_assert (is_same <__uint128_t, u128>::value, ""); static_assert (sizeof (s128) == sizeof (__int128), ""); static_assert (sizeof (u128) == sizeof (unsigned __int128), ""); static_assert (s128(-1) < 0, ""); static_assert (u128(-1) > 0, ""); in GCC 11 2 assertions failed (is_same with u128), while in trunk with the above patch 3 assertions fail (also the sizeof (u128) - u128 is then unsigned int rather than unsigned __int128. No idea what we want for the is_same assertions, but I bet if we just pedwarn on unsigned __int128_t and don't reject it, users would expect at least some 128-bit unsigned type. Though, even on: // PR c++/108099 // { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } // { dg-options "" } typedef long long t64; using u64 = unsigned t64; using s64 = signed t64; template <typename T, T v> struct integral_constant { static constexpr T value = v; }; typedef integral_constant <bool, false> false_type; typedef integral_constant <bool, true> true_type; template <class T, class U> struct is_same : false_type {}; template <class T> struct is_same <T, T> : true_type {}; static_assert (is_same <long long, s64>::value, ""); static_assert (is_same <signed long long, s64>::value, ""); static_assert (is_same <unsigned long long, u64>::value, ""); static_assert (sizeof (s64) == sizeof (long long), ""); static_assert (sizeof (u64) == sizeof (unsigned long long), ""); static_assert (s64(-1) < 0, ""); static_assert (u64(-1) > 0, ""); in GCC 11 only one assertion failed (is_same for u64), while in GCC 12 and unpatched or patched trunk 2 of them fail (also the sizeof (u64) one). So, it seems the r12-8173 change behavior not just for the builtin types, but also for any other typedefs (in the unsigned case).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-14 19:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-12-14 11:52 [Bug c++/108099] New: ICE when parsing signed __int128_t typedef moritz.klammler at cetitec dot com 2022-12-14 12:20 ` [Bug c++/108099] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 12:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 12:26 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 13:12 ` moritz.klammler at cetitec dot com 2022-12-14 17:46 ` [Bug c++/108099] ICE with type alias with `signed __int_128_t` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 17:54 ` [Bug c++/108099] ICE with type alias with `signed __int128_t` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 17:58 ` [Bug c++/108099] [12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 18:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-14 19:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-12-14 19:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-21 12:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-12-21 18:14 ` ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com 2023-01-31 16:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-01 0:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-01 11:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-01 19:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-01 19:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-09 22:25 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-10 3:57 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-10 3:59 ` [Bug c++/108099] [12 " jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-10 10:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-18 20:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-19 15:23 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-19 16:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-19 16:59 ` [Bug c++/108099] [12/13/14 " jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-20 7:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-20 7:48 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-21 19:33 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-02 20:25 ` [Bug c++/108099] [12/13 " cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-08 12:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-25 10:50 ` [Bug c++/108099] [12 " redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-08-11 21:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-12-19 21:50 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-108099-4-cH0IPPXZjt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).