https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183
--- Comment #5 from Ruslan ---
Yes, this is exactly the problem: the generic case is optimized while the
special case, where the divisor is a compile-time constant, isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #15 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Can you attach -fdump-tree-optimized and -fdump-rtl-cse2
> -fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fdump-rtl-dse ? I really wonder what is
> different in our vs. your compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #14 from Zhendong Su ---
Created attachment 43688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43688&action=edit
output from "gcctk -fdump-rtl-cse2 -fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fdump-rtl-dse2
-c small.c"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #13 from Zhendong Su ---
Created attachment 43687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43687&action=edit
output from "gcctk -fdump-rtl-cse2 -c small.c"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
Bug ID: 84922
Summary: fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in
interface and contained procedures
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kimwooyoung at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Umm, isn't that invalid code? The whole point of the warning is to catch
> precisely this kind of broken idiom. Right?
Why is it invalid? Argument 4 is for %p. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65453
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84921
Bug ID: 84921
Summary: [5 Regression] With -O3 gcc incorrectly assumes
aligned SSE instructions (e.g. movdqa) can be used
Product: gcc
Version: 5.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:57:46PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
>
> --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Does it still fail for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:03:30PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
>
> --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I get
>
> pr58904.f90:5:4:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183
--- Comment #4 from jimis ---
Indeed, as showcased by this example:
https://godbolt.org/g/nsSTHG
The function calls __udivmoddi4, like you said. However, the call is inlined in
main, but there we see separate calls for __udivdi3 and __umoddi3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84892
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84897
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84660
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
This is what the original patch I wrote looked like. But then I tried to
optimize it a bit to eliminate the redundant nonzero_bits call, and that is
where I screwed up. Then I got overwhelmed by work and haven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84888
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> link to thread on reddit?
>
Never mind, I found it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/84oizv/usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/dvr93d4/
I'll confirm t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The change occurred between revisions r242984 (2016-11-29, ICE) and r243219
(2016-12-03, errors), likely fixed by r243020 (pr78593) for gcc7 and r243485
for gcc6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183
--- Comment #3 from Ruslan ---
Ah, actually your problem is with a constant divisor. I reported it as bug
84759. If you change 10 to e.g. a function parameter, then you'll get
__udivmoddi4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71167
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I get
pr58904.f90:5:4:
r%b = b
1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
pr58904.f90:3:2:
TYPE(mytype) FUNCTION create_sort_range(b) result(r)
1
Error: The type for function 'create_sor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916
Vittorio Romeo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vittorio.romeo at outlook dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Does it still fail for you?
Yep!-(
...
Error: Expecting END SUBROUTINE statement at (1)
=
==19146==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183
--- Comment #2 from jimis ---
No, I still see the same behaviour with gcc 7.3 on my Fedora box.
Is the this link from godbolt showcasing it for you?
https://godbolt.org/g/dKEf39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
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=84920
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84920
Bug ID: 84920
Summary: Better handling of unmatched/ambiguous calls
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Bug ID: 84919
Summary: [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to
restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5
[-Werror=restrict]
Product: gcc
Version: 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Bug ID: 84918
Summary: Better handling of "std::cout >> 42;"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Another one:
void test (char *dst, const char *src)
{
strncpy (dst, 10, src);
}
In function 'void test(char*, const char*)':
:3:5: error: 'strncpy' was not declared in this scope
strncpy (dst, 10,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jason Vas Dias from comment #2)
> > Thanks H.J. -
> >
> > RE:
> > > vDSO isn't compiled with -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern in kernel
> > > 4.16-rc5. Why isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 43685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43685&action=edit
Kernel patch for 4.16-rc5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84360
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84917
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84917
Bug ID: 84917
Summary: Verbosity when dealing with nested template data
structures
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
...and according to:
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/84op5c/usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/dvspoet/
the rust developers took ideas on diagnostics-printing from Elm.
Note to self: need to look at Elm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84789
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Or just textual length? (perhaps with a param)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916
Bug ID: 84916
Summary: Tweaks to template type elision
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 16 21:01:16 2018
New Revision: 258610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84899
* postreload.c (reload_combine_recognize_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 16 20:12:27 2018
New Revision: 258609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/84909
* c-warn.c (conversion_warning): Replace "to to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84915
Bug ID: 84915
Summary: documentation: __FUNCTION__ is said by gcc-6 info to
be a preprocessor macro
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 16 20:11:40 2018
New Revision: 258608
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258608&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/84910
* c-warn.c (diagnose_mismatched_attributes): Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It requires TARGET_POWERPC64 (not TARGET_64BIT).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> >
> > Reddit user "ramennoodle" comments:
[...]
> ...link for this one?
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/84op5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Link for this next one though?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598074
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69395
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Mar 16 19:20:15 2018
New Revision: 258607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69395
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Hacker News user "dmckeon" commented:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16603185
> A small idea: reframe suggestions to be positive, future-looking,
> and pro-active, such as replacing:
>
> did you fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71834
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84906
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80227
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 16 18:56:01 2018
New Revision: 258604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80227 - SFINAE and negative array size.
* decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 16 18:56:06 2018
New Revision: 258605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84720 - ICE with rvalue ref non-type argument.
* p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84906
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 16 18:55:54 2018
New Revision: 258603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84906 - silent wrong code with ambiguous conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jason Vas Dias from comment #2)
> Thanks H.J. -
>
> RE:
> > vDSO isn't compiled with -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern in kernel
> > 4.16-rc5. Why isn't it the case for you?
>
> All I know is , when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Mar 16 18:48:26 2018
New Revision: 258602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-16 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/84876
* lr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84897
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Yes, we want to special case the inline namespaces std::__cxx11 and std::_V2
> so that they only show their contents as std::xxx not std::_V2::xxx. Or
> maybe a
our patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
>>improve the system]
>
>url:
>https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/jason-vas-dias-gmail-com/x86-vdso-on-Intel-VDSO-should-handle-CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW/20180316-070319
>config: x86_64-rhel (attac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84914
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84914
Bug ID: 84914
Summary: PowerPC complex multiply/divide calls the wrong
function when -mabi=ieeelongdouble
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84903
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84891
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm not sure what the C++ complex multiplication / division requirements
are here (for that matter, C doesn't seem to precisely define which NaN -
which value with at least one NaN part and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43683&action=edit
gcc8-pr84899.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:11:30PM +, mdblack98 at yahoo dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
>
> --- Comment #5 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
> I've been using Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84913
Bug ID: 84913
Summary: ICE vectorising chained conditional reduction
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84913
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you attach -fdump-tree-optimized and -fdump-rtl-cse2
-fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fdump-rtl-dse ? I really wonder what is different
in our vs. your compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912
Bug ID: 84912
Summary: __builtin_divde* produce Internal Compiler Error when
compiled -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> So GCC's definition of max_align_t is not consistent with malloc in Solaris
Oh, I'm assuming here that the definition of max_align_t is coming from GCC's
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This doesn't seem like a libstdc++ bug. malloc must return memory suitably
aligned for any type of object with a fundamental alignment, i.e. <=
_Alignof(max_align_t).
So GCC's definition of max_align_t is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71882
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
IMHO that's a reasonable interpretation, but so is GCC's :-)
Transforming the program as per 10.3.1.1 [namespace.unnamed] we get:
namespace N { }
using namespace N;
namespace N { struct S; }
class C {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 84907, which changed state.
Bug 84907 Summary: [8 Regression] ppc64le gromacs miscompilation since r256656
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
rce-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180316 (experimental) [trunk revision 258587] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-O3' '-c' '-v' '-mtune=generic' &#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71882
--- Comment #3 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> 10.3.1.2 [namespace.memdef] p3 says "the lookup to determine whether the
> entity has been previously declared shall not consider any scopes outside
> the in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71882
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC adds a declaration of struct S to the enclosing namespace, and makes that a
friend, rather than the struct S in the unnamed namespace.
10.3.1.2 [namespace.memdef] p3 says "the lookup to determine wheth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
