[Bug c++/60258] New: Member initialization for atomic fail.

[Bug c++/60258] New: Member initialization for atomic fail.

[ja.gcc.bugzilla at aptsketch dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

            Bug ID: 60258
           Summary: Member initialization for atomic fail.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: ja.gcc.bugzilla at aptsketch dot com

The following code is unable to compile:

template <class Ty1>
class base
{
public:
    std::atomic_size_t _magic{10};
};

class derived
    : public base<derived>
{
public:
    auto print_magic_num() const noexcept -> void
    {
    }
};

auto my_func() -> void
{
    derived a;
}

Removing the member initialization for the atomic will allow it to compile.

[Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Why the
auto my_func() -> void
rather than
void my_func()
?  The fact that C++11 allows the former form doesn't mean the latter form is
deprecated, and in the case when the return type doesn't depend on argument
types it doesn't make any sense to use that form.

[Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.

[ja.gcc.bugzilla at aptsketch dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

--- Comment #2 from ja.gcc.bugzilla at aptsketch dot com ---
auto foo() -> void
vs
void foo()

is more of just a stylistic issue. There is nothing wrong with both. To me both
are good.

The bug is about std::atomic member initialization. Where if there is member
initialization std::atomic_size_t x{10} the compiler chokes on it.

[Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Sure, my comment was about this stylistic issue, not about the real bug (if
any, haven't tried it).  Note your testcase isn't self-contained, you probably
need #include <atomic>.

[Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

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> ---
Reduced example:

//------------------
#include <atomic>

template <class>
struct base
{
  std::atomic_bool magic{false};
};

int main() 
{
  base<void> b;
}
//------------------

Diagnostics (gcc HEAD 4.9.0 20140215 (experimental)):

<quote>
prog.cc: In constructor 'constexpr base<void>::base()': 
prog.cc:4:8: error: use of deleted function
'std::atomic_bool::atomic_bool(const std::atomic_bool&)' 
  struct base 
         ^ 
In file included from prog.cc:1:0: 
/usr/local/gcc-head/include/c++/4.9.0/atomic:62:5: note: declared here
  atomic_bool(const atomic_bool&) = delete; 
  ^ 
prog.cc: In function 'int main()': 
prog.cc:11:14: note: synthesized method 'constexpr base<void>::base()' first
required here 
  base<void> b; 
  ^
</quote>

The error doesn't occur, if the class template is replaced by a non-template
class.
>From gcc-bugs-return-444122-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Feb 18 20:16:12 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444122-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29561 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2014 20:16:11 -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 29518 invoked by uid 48); 18 Feb 2014 20:16:06 -0000
From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/60232] [OOP] The rank of the element in the structure constructor does not match that of the component
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:16:00 -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: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-60232-4-sANny8WdBj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60232-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60232-4@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: 2014-02/txt/msg01879.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1918

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`232

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |janus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch fixes the error:


Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
==================================================================--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c    (revision 207846)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c    (working copy)
@@ -1134,8 +1134,6 @@ resolve_structure_cons (gfc_expr *expr, int init)

   for (; comp && cons; comp = comp->next, cons = gfc_constructor_next (cons))
     {
-      int rank;
-
       if (!cons->expr)
     continue;

@@ -1145,15 +1143,18 @@ resolve_structure_cons (gfc_expr *expr, int init)
       continue;
     }

-      rank = comp->as ? comp->as->rank : 0;
-      if (cons->expr->expr_type != EXPR_NULL && rank != cons->expr->rank
-      && (comp->attr.allocatable || cons->expr->rank))
+      if (!comp->attr.proc_pointer)
     {
-      gfc_error ("The rank of the element in the structure "
-             "constructor at %L does not match that of the "
-             "component (%d/%d)", &cons->expr->where,
-             cons->expr->rank, rank);
-      t = false;
+      int rank = comp->as ? comp->as->rank : 0;
+      if (cons->expr->expr_type != EXPR_NULL && rank != cons->expr->rank
+          && (comp->attr.allocatable || cons->expr->rank))
+        {
+          gfc_error ("The rank of the element in the structure "
+            "constructor at %L does not match that of the "
+            "component (%d/%d)", &cons->expr->where,
+            cons->expr->rank, rank);
+          t = false;
+        }
     }

       /* If we don't have the right type, try to convert it.  */

[Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> Reduced example:

More reduced by eliminating library dependencies:

//------------------
struct atomic_bool
{
  atomic_bool(const atomic_bool&) = delete;
  constexpr atomic_bool(bool) noexcept { }
};

#define USE_TEMPLATE

#ifdef USE_TEMPLATE
template <class>
#endif
struct base
{
  atomic_bool magic{false};
};

int main()
{
#ifdef USE_TEMPLATE
  base<void> b;
#else
  base b;
#endif
}
//------------------
>From gcc-bugs-return-444169-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 08:10:52 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444169-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26364 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2014 08:10:52 -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 26326 invoked by uid 48); 19 Feb 2014 08:10:47 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:10:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
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-60258-4-CvQvrFjkPc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60258-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60258-4@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: 2014-02/txt/msg01926.txt.bz2
Content-length: 400

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`258

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-02-19
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

[Bug c++/60258] Member initialization for atomic fail.

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Dup, already fixed.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 58930 ***