This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3

From: Soul Studios <matt at soulstudios dot co dot nz>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:30:46 +1200
Subject: Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3
References: <5B270A8F.4090802@soulstudios.co.nz> <CAH6eHdSA+hYV=9Jzpk2TF=Gj042u_t7CciC=L_sQ9ZTCH2UoOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdTUoujUeqDdykLatVcbRjf_ixEoZnVs=s864+Ha9hEchQ@mail.gmail.com>


It's never called.

I added a call to abort() to that function, and the tests all pass. So
the function is never used, so GCC never compiles it and doesn't
notice that the return type is invalid. That's allowed by the
standard. The compiler is not required to diagnose ill-formed code in
uninstantiated templates.



UPDATE: My bad.

The original compiler feature detection on the test suite was broken/notmatching the correct libstdc++ versions.

Hence the emplace_back/emplace_front tests were not running.
However, it does surprise me that GCC doesn't check this code.
Cheers-

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

References:
- Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3
  - From: Soul Studios
- Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]