public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
@ 2013-06-11 16:29 mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
2013-06-11 16:55 ` [Bug c++/57588] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 more replies)
0 siblings, 8 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: mattyclarkson at gmail dot com @ 2013-06-11 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
Bug ID: 57588
Summary: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to
link
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
The following code, links in optimisation modes but not others:
#include <iostream>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
class Literal {
private:
Literal() = delete;
Literal(const Literal&) = delete;
Literal(Literal&&) = delete;
Literal& operator=(const Literal&) = delete;
Literal& operator=(Literal&&) = delete;
~Literal() = default;
public:
constexpr Literal(const int i);
public:
constexpr operator int() const;
private:
int int_;
};
constexpr Literal::Literal(const int i) : int_(i) {};
constexpr Literal::operator int() const {
return int_;
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
class Test {
private:
Test(const Test&) = delete;
Test(Test&&) = delete;
Test& operator=(const Test&) = delete;
Test& operator=(Test&&) = delete;
~Test() = default;
public:
static constexpr const Literal kLiteral = Literal(99);
public:
constexpr Test();
public:
constexpr operator int() const;
private:
int int_;
};
constexpr Test::Test() : int_(kLiteral) {};
constexpr Test::operator int() const {
return int_;
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int main() {
std::cout << Literal(15) << std::endl;
std::cout << Test() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Has some odd compilation on my machine:
[matt test] uname -a
Linux office.acer-m5810 3.8.13-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon May 13 13:36:17 UTC
2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[matt test] g++ -std=c++11 test.cpp -o test -O0 -g && ./test
/tmp/ccZtV9ku.o: In function `Test::Test()':
/home/matt/test/test.cpp:51: undefined reference to `Test::kLiteral'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
[matt test] g++ -std=c++11 test.cpp -o test -O1 -g && ./test
15
99
[matt test] g++ -std=c++11 test.cpp -o test -O2 -g && ./test
15
99
[matt test] g++ -std=c++11 test.cpp -o test -O3 -g && ./test
15
99
However, on gcc.godbolt.org and ideone.com I cannot get the same compilation
error with 4.7.2. I'm assuming I'm not being a donkey and doing something
against the standard? :/
If I can help with any debugging, please ask.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
@ 2013-06-11 16:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-11 16:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-06-11 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Isn't this just
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
2013-06-11 16:55 ` [Bug c++/57588] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-06-11 16:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-11 18:08 ` mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-06-11 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Although shouldn't it fail to compile, due to private destructor and copy
constructor?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
2013-06-11 16:55 ` [Bug c++/57588] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-11 16:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-06-11 18:08 ` mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
2013-06-12 9:57 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: mattyclarkson at gmail dot com @ 2013-06-11 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #3 from Matt Clarkson <mattyclarkson at gmail dot com> ---
Thanks for that link, its very informative :) I can see why it fails to link
now.
About the private destructor, I'd expect it to not compile, but it does. I
actually didn't even realise I'd made it private as I was just hacking together
a quick testcase. Is that a bug?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-11 18:08 ` mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
@ 2013-06-12 9:57 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-06-12 10:02 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com @ 2013-06-12 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
| |com
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Isn't this just
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition ?
I don't think that this correct here (In C++11 the rules became relaxed). Just
having a quick look at it, it looks like this depends on bug 53628.
>From gcc-bugs-return-424241-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jun 12 10:01:42 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-424241-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 927 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2013 10:01:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 863 invoked by uid 48); 12 Jun 2013 10:01:33 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/49630] [OOP] ICE on obsolescent deferred-length type bound character function
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:01:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-49630-4-4G3UaEJxFN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49630-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49630-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00620.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1159
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idI630
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-06-12
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
For the code in comment #0, I get the following ICE:
In function 'do_something':
Segmentation fault
print *,this%abc_function()
^
Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.
gfcc: internal compiler error: Abort trap (program f951)
or
pr49630.f90: In function 'do_something':
pr49630.f90:26:0: internal compiler error: in build_int_cst_wide, at
tree.c:1213
print *,this%abc_function()
^
pr49630.f90:26:0: internal compiler error: Abort trap
gfca: internal compiler error: Abort trap (program f951)
for versions configured with --enable-checking=release.
AFAICT the code in comment #1 compiles with 4.8 and trunk (it is not supported
in 4.7).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-12 9:57 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
@ 2013-06-12 10:02 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-06-12 10:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com @ 2013-06-12 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Although shouldn't it fail to compile, due to private destructor and copy
> constructor?
I agree, it should fail. Interesting is, that the code compiles even when I use
--no-elide-constructors.
>From gcc-bugs-return-424243-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jun 12 10:37:37 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-424243-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16103 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2013 10:37:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16082 invoked by uid 48); 12 Jun 2013 10:37:32 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/57594] New: [C++11] in-class static initializer can use deleted copy constructor
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:37:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status keywords bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
Message-ID: <bug-57594-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00622.txt.bz2
Content-length: 642
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW594
Bug ID: 57594
Summary: [C++11] in-class static initializer can use deleted
copy constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
This should be rejected:
struct Private
{
Private(const Private&) = delete;
Private() = default;
};
struct A
{
static constexpr Private p = Private();
};
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-12 10:02 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
@ 2013-06-12 10:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-07-01 6:20 ` [Bug c++/57588] [C++11] " richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2015-03-25 16:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-06-12 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> I don't think that this correct here (In C++11 the rules became relaxed).
It was post-C++11, but as a DR we should implement it, and I see you're right,
the initialization of int_ uses the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion immediately so
it isn't odr-used.
I've created PR 57594 and PR 57595 for the missing diagnostics.
>From gcc-bugs-return-424244-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jun 12 10:42:11 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-424244-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19046 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2013 10:42:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19024 invoked by uid 48); 12 Jun 2013 10:42:08 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/57595] New: [C++11] Destructor defaulted on first declaration is treated as public
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:42:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status keywords bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
Message-ID: <bug-57595-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00623.txt.bz2
Content-length: 617
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW595
Bug ID: 57595
Summary: [C++11] Destructor defaulted on first declaration is
treated as public
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
This should be rejected:
class Private
{
~Private() = default;
public:
Private() = default;
};
int main()
{
(void)Private{};
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-12 10:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-07-01 6:20 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2015-03-25 16:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk @ 2013-07-01 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
Richard Smith <richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
| |.co.uk
--- Comment #7 from Richard Smith <richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> > I don't think that this correct here (In C++11 the rules became relaxed).
>
> It was post-C++11, but as a DR we should implement it, and I see you're
> right, the initialization of int_ uses the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion
> immediately so it isn't odr-used.
The mem-initializer in question is "int_(kLiteral)", or after performing
overload resolution, "int_(kLiteral.operator int())". This is an odr-use of
kLiteral, therefore a definition is required. There is no lvalue-to-rvalue
conversion here; 'Literal::operator int' returns an rvalue (and in any case,
kLiteral is not in the set of potential results of the expression).
>From gcc-bugs-return-425498-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Jul 01 06:25:43 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-425498-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22289 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2013 06:25:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22233 invoked by uid 48); 1 Jul 2013 06:25:36 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 06:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: steven at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_gcctarget target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-57763-4-16qknCGm1R@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57763-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57763-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2
Content-length: 718
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |alpha-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #4)
> Can you please give the revision number for the compiler that gives
> you this problem? The revision number must match to make sure the
> gcda file is valid.
The revision is:
xgcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130630 (experimental) [trunk revision 200569]
>From gcc-bugs-return-425499-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Jul 01 06:26:19 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-425499-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23147 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2013 06:26:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23122 invoked by uid 55); 1 Jul 2013 06:26:16 -0000
From: "zeccav at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/57749] -ffpe-trap=zero or invalid produces SIGFPE on complex zero ** 1e0
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 06:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: zeccav at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57749-4-yAXUgIwK9n@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57749-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57749-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2
Content-length: 592
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW749
--- Comment #12 from Vittorio Zecca <zeccav at gmail dot com> ---
> --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> Yes, I agree that there is a bug, ...
>
> Then you should report to the library maintainers, not to gfortran.
The notion that this may be a library bug was not obvious to me from
the beginning.
I think that if the gfortran developers suspect there is a bug in a
library called
by gfortran to handle a numeric intrinsic operator like exponentiation,
then they should be worried, more than I am.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/57588] [C++11] static constexpr in class fails to link
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-07-01 6:20 ` [Bug c++/57588] [C++11] " richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
@ 2015-03-25 16:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2015-03-25 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Thus, if I understand correctly the discussion (otherwise, please, reopen!)
modulo access control issues in the testcase, we correctly fail at linktime.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-03-25 16:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-06-11 16:29 [Bug c++/57588] New: [C++11][constexpr] static constexpr in class fails to link mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
2013-06-11 16:55 ` [Bug c++/57588] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-11 16:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-11 18:08 ` mattyclarkson at gmail dot com
2013-06-12 9:57 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-06-12 10:02 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-06-12 10:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-07-01 6:20 ` [Bug c++/57588] [C++11] " richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2015-03-25 16:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
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).