https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Leonid Lisovskiy from comment #14)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #13)
> > Marking this as fixed then. Thanks for testing.
>
> Could you repeat the same optimizations for MIPS (`xlp_cpu',
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> markus@x4 tmp % cat fsmpage.i
You got to it before I could do that :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77506
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77506
Bug ID: 77506
Summary: stamdard for f2008 does not allow CHARACTER(LEN=*) in
array constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77505
Bug ID: 77505
Summary: Negative character length not treated as LEN=0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
urbanjost at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||urbanjost at comcast dot ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
--- Comment #26 from Martin Sebor ---
It seems that it should be possible to enhance the warn_uninitialized_vars
function in tree-ssa-uninit.c to detect this case by iterating over a callee's
arguments and warn on uninitialized variables whose ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 70987, which changed state.
Bug 70987 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized calling built-in string functions
with an uninitialized argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70987
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70987
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Sep 6 23:22:26 2016
New Revision: 240018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33952
--- Comment #5 from Eelis ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Eelis: FWIW, gcc has a -fmax-errors=n option; I wonder if setting that to 1
> might be a better fit for geordi? (just thinking aloud here).
It also truncates the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33952
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77493
--- Comment #10 from David Abdurachmanov
---
We have been bitten by DSE with TBB already on GCC 6.2.0.
I decided to try -fno-lifetime-dse on the first bad commit and got some
surprising results. Now it fails with:
pure virtual method called
te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57519
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77389
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57519
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Sep 6 22:26:11 2016
New Revision: 240017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-07 Dominique d'Humieres
PR debug/57519
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57519
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Sep 6 22:22:58 2016
New Revision: 240016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-07 Dominique d'Humieres
PR debug/57519
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77389
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Sep 6 22:18:54 2016
New Revision: 240015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-07 Dominique d'Humieres
PR debug/77389
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57519
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Sep 6 22:18:54 2016
New Revision: 240015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-07 Dominique d'Humieres
PR debug/77389
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 39577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39577&action=edit
Patch for testing, fixes comment #2?
This patch for testing. I have tested on x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0 whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69255
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 6 20:30:57 2016
New Revision: 240014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69255
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Also pr66459.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Another candidate for duplicate: pr56670.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Similar problem in/duplicate of pr60500.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77499
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #0)
> PS: I am not sure I completely understand the way the last_set_value stuff
> works for pseudo's in combine, but it looks to me like each instruction is
> visited i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77336
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Sep 6 19:23:25 2016
New Revision: 240013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/77336 - -Wsuggest-attribute=format warning overly simplistic
gcc/c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77336
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
Bug ID: 77504
Summary: "is used uninitialized" with allocatable string and
array constructors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
--- Comment #14 from Leonid Lisovskiy ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #13)
> Marking this as fixed then. Thanks for testing.
Could you repeat the same optimizations for MIPS (`xlp_cpu', `xlp_fpu')?
Should I create the separate PR for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
Ditto on ARM:
$ gcc -O3 -mfpu=neon pr77503.c , and so on.
but gcc 6 seems to work fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
--- Comment #3 from PeteVine ---
Created attachment 39576
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39576&action=edit
preprocessed fsmpage source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77502
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
I found another case: initializing an array of structs:
struct X
{
const char* p;
int i;
};
X x[] = {
{ "hello", 0 },
{ 0, 0 }, // !
{ 0, 0 }, // !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77503
Bug ID: 77503
Summary: [7 regression] ICE in vect_transform_stmt compiling
postgresql
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #46 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #44)
> In case I was a little unclear, the board freezes, not the binary.
Looks like GCC optimizes the output so much, the board cannot cope with such a
perfect code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
> How would that help here? You obviously pass the address of the string
> literal to the __assert_func or how is the assertion passed, thus it escapes.
With the optimization in place the assert macro could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> Perhaps it might be possible to generalize the enhancement request to a
> space optimization for GCC to store only the trailing part of strings that
> are ever ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
-Wextra -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant
20160906-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant.cpp
20160906-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant.cpp: In constructor ‘Foo::Foo()’:
20160906-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant.cpp:10:6: error: zero as null pointer
constant [-Werror=zero-as-null-pointer-constant]
c(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77496
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #3)
> The "correct" test case emits two nearly identical -Wpedantic warnings:
>
... which is probably OK, given the second one if it is emitted,
points to the insta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #45 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #44)
> In case I was a little unclear, the board freezes, not the binary.
Aarg, got it. That's definitely funny behavior ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77448
Nick Fitzgerald [:fitzgen] [⏰PDT; UTC-7]
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #44 from PeteVine ---
In case I was a little unclear, the board freezes, not the binary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77501
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
More variants :
$ cat z2.f90
module m
type t
contains
generic :: f => g
generic :: g => f
end type
end
$ cat z3.f90
module m
type t
contains
generic :: f => g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77501
Bug ID: 77501
Summary: ICE in gfc_match_generic, at fortran/decl.c:9429
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77500
Bug ID: 77500
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_omp_atomic, at
fortran/trans-openmp.c:2822
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #43 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #42)
> Funnily enough, using `-fprofile-update=atomic` and targeting Cortex-A5/NEON
> immediately leads to a hard-freeze on trying to run the instrumented binary.
> Probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77452
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #42 from PeteVine ---
Funnily enough, using `-fprofile-update=atomic` and targeting Cortex-A5/NEON
immediately leads to a hard-freeze on trying to run the instrumented binary.
Probably a bug in the outdated kernel. (I've got a screens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77496
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
The "correct" test case emits two nearly identical -Wpedantic warnings:
One when the template is parsed, and one when the template is instantiated.
The second one is unnecessary, IMHO.
template
class z :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77499
Bug ID: 77499
Summary: Regression after code-hoisting, due to combine pass
failing to evaluate known value range
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77499
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77452
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Sep 6 15:33:32 2016
New Revision: 240012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-09-05 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 39574
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39574&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to compile with -O2 -ffast-math to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
Bug ID: 77498
Summary: [7 regression] Performance drop after r239414 on
spec2000/172mgrid
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77497
Bug ID: 77497
Summary: Setting DWARF level and debug level together has
flag-ordering-dependent results
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68260
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
I looked at the patch, but I am unqualified to review it. The test looks good
to me. +Yuri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77378
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Bug 58306 depends on bug 77466, which changed state.
Bug 77466 Summary: [7 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-dump-1.C -std=gnu++11
(test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77466
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68260
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 39573
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39573&action=edit
gcc7-pr68260.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77378
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Sep 6 14:13:21 2016
New Revision: 240008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Detect whether target can use -fprofile-update=atomic
PR gcov-pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77466
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Sep 6 14:13:21 2016
New Revision: 240008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Detect whether target can use -fprofile-update=atomic
PR gcov-pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #40 from PeteVine ---
Absolutely! Even at 32 threads there's no problem whatsoever.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #39 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #38)
> Aaargh, I was using a recent nightly for the first time in a month and
> completely forgot it was still necessary. Apologies!
No problem! Good that it works, may I m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #38 from PeteVine ---
Aaargh, I was using a recent nightly for the first time in a month and
completely forgot it was still necessary. Apologies!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #11 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com ---
Ping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #37 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #36)
> The original patch is still not enough it seems. I've just tried profiling
> the C-ray benchmark from issue #53659 (./c-ray-mt -t 32 -s 160x120 -r 8 -i
> sphfract -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77485
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
I agree that the generic case can become quite complicated: if after the
memset, the individual values are written with gaps between them, or multiple
contiguous chunks with gaps between them, it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488
--- Comment #2 from R. Diez ---
> __FILE__ expands to whatever you pass on the command line as the base file
> (and for headers whatever the directory is where they are found + the header
> filename. So, if you compile with gcc -c something.c -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77479
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 6 12:51:01 2016
New Revision: 240007
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240007&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77479
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77450
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 6 12:49:53 2016
New Revision: 240006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-06 Richard Biener
PR c/77450
c-family/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72743
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> IIRC the measurements have been run on x86 only, they are done "statically",
> that is, verify the prediction against real outcomes as computed by the edge
> profile
> which is target independent.
Yes, the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Artem S. Tashkinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #36 from PeteVine ---
The original patch is still not enough it seems. I've just tried profiling the
C-ray benchmark from issue #53659 (./c-ray-mt -t 32 -s 160x120 -r 8 -i sphfract
-o output.ppm) and any -t (for threads) greater than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77496
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
possible fix:
--- a/gcc-7-20160904/gcc/cp/class.c 2016-08-26 17:10:57.0 +0200
+++ b/gcc-7-20160904/gcc/cp/class.c 2016-09-06 11:55:27.252138088 +0200
@@ -8262,6 +8262,11 @@ instantiate_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery |diagnostic
--- Comment #6 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77477
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jim Michaels from comment #2)
> I don't believe this answer.
> to my knowledge the syntax is OK for c++11.
Please stop claiming templates don't work and learn to write C++.
> I was even told
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77446
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77494
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
You need to report gas bugs to the binutils maintainers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77494
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77356
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
