This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

[Bug c++/48912] [C++0x] Compiler abort silently


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|[C++0x]Compiler abort       |[C++0x] Compiler abort
                   |silently                    |silently

--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-05-06 09:47:40 UTC ---
As a matter of fact, with the released 4.6.0 I'm getting an ICE, not a silent
miscompilation for the second snippet. In mainline and in the 4_6-branch it's
already correctly rejected with something like:

...
...
48912_2.C:3:11:   in constexpr expansion of âf()â
48912_2.C:3:11:   in constexpr expansion of âf()â
48912_2.C:3:11:   in constexpr expansion of âf()â
48912_2.C:8:22: error: constexpr evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use
-fconstexpr-depth= to increase the maximum)

The first snippet though, the recursive function alone, is accepted in mainline
and 4_6-branch, I'm not 100% sure that's correct, probably it is but let's ask
Jason to have a look.


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