[Bug c++/60273] gcc gets confused when one class uses variadic

["daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60273

Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
My understanding is that your example is touching an open language issue,
namely

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1430

The current tendency seems to be that this should be ill-formed (personally I'm
not happy with that decision). Current clang and gcc do both reject your code.
I suggest to mark this issue as deferred pending 1430.
>From gcc-bugs-return-444263-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 20:36:45 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444263-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30232 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2014 20:36:45 -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 30172 invoked by uid 48); 19 Feb 2014 20:36:41 -0000
From: "warnerme at ptd dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/59933] for loop goes wild with assert() enabled
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:36:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: warnerme at ptd dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
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-59933-4-zGPKu9bXlJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59933-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59933-4@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/msg02020.txt.bz2
Content-length: 347

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idY933

--- Comment #11 from Mark Warner <warnerme at ptd dot net> ---
I'm confused .. what about..
for (k = i; k < (int)(sizeof(NSQ_del_dec_struct) / sizeof(opus_int32)); ++k)
... is illegal or invalid ?
Why does it only fail if -DDEBUG is defined ?
I mean, this code worked fine for months .. and now