public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
@ 2020-09-29 8:26 lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-09-29 10:11 ` [Bug c++/97237] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com @ 2020-09-29 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
Bug ID: 97237
Summary: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept
fpermissive code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following valid code:
constexpr bool test() {
auto i = 1 << 132;
return true;
}
static_assert(test());
Build with GCC -fpermissive does compile in GCC 9 but not in 10/11:
> non-constant condition for static assertion
See: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/r85zvP
But this code is valid in all versions:
constexpr bool test() {
auto i = 1 << 132;
return true;
}
constexpr auto t = test();
static_assert(t);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97237] [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
@ 2020-09-29 10:11 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-29 10:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-29 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |10.2.0, 11.0
Last reconfirmed| |2020-09-29
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work| |9.3.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started to be rejected with r276622 "PR c++/91369 - Implement P0784R7:
constexpr new"
I'm not sure how much we care about accepting this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97237] [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-09-29 10:11 ` [Bug c++/97237] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-09-29 10:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-29 10:43 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-29 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It surprises me -fpermissive ever accepted such bogosities.
Also using -fpermissive with C++11 and later code is very weird, -fpermissive
is about letting some very old unmaintained code compile, but using that
together with C++11 features doesn't make sense.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97237] [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-09-29 10:11 ` [Bug c++/97237] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-29 10:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-09-29 10:43 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-16 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-29 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Toni Neubert from comment #0)
> The following valid code:
N.B. that's not valid at all. That's why you need to use -fpermissive to
compile it.
> But this code is valid in all versions:
No, it's invalid in all versions. It's only accepted with -fpermissive because
that means "please accept my broken code".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97237] [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-29 10:43 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-16 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-24 20:09 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-11-05 7:01 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-16 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97237] [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-16 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-24 20:09 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-11-05 7:01 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com @ 2020-10-24 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
--- Comment #4 from Toni Neubert <lutztonineubert at gmail dot com> ---
This code seems to fail for the same reason:
constexpr int get() {
[[maybe_unused]] auto i = 1 << 32;
return 0;
}
template<auto a = get()>
constexpr int test() {
return a;
}
constexpr int t1 = get();
constexpr int t2 = test();
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97237] [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-24 20:09 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
@ 2020-11-05 7:01 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: lutztonineubert at gmail dot com @ 2020-11-05 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
Toni Neubert <lutztonineubert at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from Toni Neubert <lutztonineubert at gmail dot com> ---
Closed this in favor of other bugs.
This isn't necessary at all. Sorry for your time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-05 7:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-29 8:26 [Bug c++/97237] New: [10/11 Regression] static_assert does not accept fpermissive code lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-09-29 10:11 ` [Bug c++/97237] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-29 10:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-29 10:43 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-16 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-24 20:09 ` lutztonineubert at gmail dot com
2020-11-05 7:01 ` lutztonineubert at gmail 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).