From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24167 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2015 11:18:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24125 invoked by uid 48); 10 Apr 2015 11:18:42 -0000 From: "jaehnesn at gmx dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/65695] [4.9/5 Regression] NSDMI calling constexpr constructor with pointer-to-member is not a constant expression Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:18:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jaehnesn at gmx dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-04/txt/msg00833.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D65695 --- Comment #8 from Sebastian J=C3=A4hne --- (In reply to Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler from comment #7) > (In reply to Sebastian J=C3=A4hne from comment #6) > > It does.=20 >=20 > No, it doesn't. >=20 > > Member functions need an object in order to operate.=20 >=20 > It only needs an object, if the function is going to invoked, but this is > not happening here. >=20 > > Only static > > member functions don't need an object (which is why you can invoke them= like > > Class::StaticMemberFunc()). >=20 > The object is not of relevance for the described example. You are right when saying that simply taking an address of a member function you don't need an object. However, please remember that you are using a constexpr static member to store this address. Constexpr are evaluated at compile time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you can only t= ake the address of a member function at runtime. >>From gcc-bugs-return-483282-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Apr 10 11:24:47 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 42180 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2015 11:24:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 42116 invoked by uid 48); 10 Apr 2015 11:24:43 -0000 From: "yroux at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/65729] [5 Regression] ICE (in prohibited_class_reg_set_mode_p, at lra-constraints.c) on arm-linux-gnueabihf Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:24:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, ra X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: yroux at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-04/txt/msg00834.txt.bz2 Content-length: 725 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65729 Yvan Roux changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yroux at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Yvan Roux --- For me the assertion in prohibited_class_reg_set_mode_p is not right, it checks that set is a subset of reg_class_contents[rclass] and my understanding is that it should be the opposite: lra_assert (hard_reg_set_subset_p (reg_class_contents[rclass],set)); With this modification the test is fixed (full validation is ongoing). Do I miss something Vlad ?