https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86602
Bug ID: 86602
Summary: need to check for a placeholder in argument to
noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86601
Bug ID: 86601
Summary: g++ accepts 'friend' at ill-formed positions in the
decl-specifier-seq
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86600
Bug ID: 86600
Summary: Class declaration in the same declarative region as
using declaration - Missing diagnostic message
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69401
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Thomas Petazzoni from comment #6)
> I see Eric Gallager added bug 68538 in the "See also" section. However, I
> don't see how they can be related: 68538 has been fixed, and the fix was
> only in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #1 from The Written Word
---
I get a similar error with 8.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
Bug ID: 86599
Summary: Problems building libgfortran from 7.2.0 on HP-UX
11.31/PA
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86598
Bug ID: 86598
Summary: Incorrect lexing of pp-numbers in C++11 due to
hexfloat extension
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
--- Comment #24 from Matt Bentley ---
Ugh. I made a mistake. Clang only throws the warning when comparing NULL with 0
without reinterpret_cast/static_cast, not when comparing pointers in general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
--- Comment #23 from Matt Bentley ---
> Actually, don't quote me on that - I may be thinking of the
> 'reinterpret_cast<_Tp>(0)' - one of the two.
Just to confirm, "reinterpret_cast(__first)" not required in this
context, either "reinterpret_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86597
Bug ID: 86597
Summary: directory_entry::exist et al forget to clear the
error_code.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86596
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely a dup of bug 57891.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86596
Bug ID: 86596
Summary: non-type template argument evaluates to an integer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86595
Bug ID: 86595
Summary: directory_entry::refresh(error_code&) should be
noexcept.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86594
Bug ID: 86594
Summary: Crash on trying to capture 'this' in instantiation of
generic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86591
--- Comment #1 from Carl Love ---
The builtins-1.c test fails on AIX. Again looks like the count should be 1 not
7 for AIX and linux.
There is an additional failure on AIX for test file altivec-1-runnable.c.
Looks like the compiler options for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression] missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jul 19 23:36:34 2018
New Revision: 262893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84047 - missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jul 19 23:36:34 2018
New Revision: 262893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84047 - missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini ---
Created attachment 44413
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44413&action=edit
Only draft front-end changes, no testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini ---
Tobias, I'm currently playing with something like the attached, which seems
only moderately more complex and passes all my tests so far. If you have ways
to further stress it, I would be glad to hear about y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
--- Comment #22 from Matt Bentley ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #21)
> Surely static_cast is good enough, and doesn't rule out making the function
> constexpr?
It may well be, how does reinterpret_cast cause constexpr to fail, gi
-mingw32 (and not i686-w64-mingw32).
I could also reproduce it with gcc-8.2.0-RC-20180719.tar.xz built for mingw64.
I could not reproduce it with native gcc.
The issue also did not appear with mingw64-gcc-7.2.0-1.fc28.x86_64
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1114148
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86546
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81851
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should it warn here?
int g (int i)
{
if (i == 0) // no warning
return 0;
#if SOME_OTHER_PLATFORM
if (i == 2)
return 1;
#endif
return 0;
}
When not compiling for SOME_OTHER_PLATFORM this en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini ---
Another testcase that we want to accept:
class Matrix;
void rot90 (const Matrix& a, int k = 1) { }
class Matrix {
friend void rot90 (const Matrix&, int);
};
void rot90 (const Matrix& a, int k);
We han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #10)
> If this is becoming the meta-bug for all warnings that affect codegen, then
> I'd like to add bug 61579 (-Wwrite-strings) as at least semi-related... (not
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 44412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44412&action=edit
C test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
--- Comment #17 from alex_y_xu at yahoo dot ca ---
seems like this should be RESOLVED FIXED?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #0)
> I think it should also work by value, like it
> did in C++ 11 and C++ 14.
Alternatively, if the request is for better inlining when there are no explicit
insta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As Marc said, the only difference is the explicit instantiation declarations.
You'll get the same in C++14 if you disable them:
#include
#undef _GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE
#include
// ...
They're only disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86592
Bug ID: 86592
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/p8-vec-xl-xst-v2.c
fails starting with r261510
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86591
Bug ID: 86591
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-1.c fails
starting with r261904
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #1 from Niall Douglas ---
Quoting from bug 86573 regarding this bug:
> The real difference in -std=c++17 is _GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE. With
> -std=c++14, we have many extern templates which the compiler almost never
> inlines. This le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
--- Comment #8 from Niall Douglas ---
Added revised bug to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Bug ID: 86590
Summary: Codegen regression when passing std::string by value
in C++ 17 and C++ 20
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 19 16:58:06 2018
New Revision: 262883
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262883&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-19 Paolo Carlini
Revert fix for c++/59480
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
Umpf. Unfortunately this doesn't work because the second time we see rot90
duplicate_decls smashes together the first two declarations and we end up with
a friend declaration which has the defaults and as su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I suspect this is because we have hard regs here, not pseudos. Not a good
idea in general, which is why other targets don't do this.
Perhaps it is a mode mixup in the known value tracking?
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Another possible compromise is to add 'bool for_warnings = false' argument to
maybe_constant_value, store it along with the reduced tree in cv_cache (perhaps
even by setting a flag on the tree itself?), a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #3 from Pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86589
Bug ID: 86589
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7-le.c and
gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-7-be.c fail starting with
r262440
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86574
--- Comment #4 from tower120 ---
Because I don't have gcc 9 locally installed. I saw that ICE on
https://wandbox.org/permlink/bPT0llOGPqouv3CM
Error message says to report - I'm reporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81923
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #11 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: avieira
Date: Thu Jul 19 14:03:21 2018
New Revision: 262881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64][PATCH 2/2] PR target/83009: Relax strict address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, if the -W* does't affect code generation goal is very important and
we don't find any other way, perhaps the price to pay for that is acceptable.
Even the PR86569 patch isn't without cost (in that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86588
--- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Created attachment 44410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44410&action=edit
intermediate file
build with -std=c++17 -fconcepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86588
Bug ID: 86588
Summary: peculiar build issue using range-v3
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is the costly variant, the already slow C++ FE will need to compute and
instantiate a lot of things that aren't really needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25814
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
cp_fully_fold smells like it could have side-effects as well, of course. Yeah,
it calls maybe_constant_value as well ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Like with
diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck.c b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
index 1335da5e9bc..aaa56697f29 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -5322,7 +5322,6 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Yeah, I think it is a dup. There are many other cases where we call
> maybe_constant_value for some warning only, and we assume it is a safe thing
> to do.
> Fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86574
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Why couldn't you? Just use -save-temps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86556
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25814
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72802
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86583
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86560
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jul 19 12:00:59 2018
New Revision: 262878
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262878&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Test __has_attribute (__indirect_return__)
The new indirect_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86581
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86585
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that for 1.ii we do _not_ emit debug information for
namespace Inkscape {
class a;
}
but we _do_ stream its NAMESPACE_DECL which then gets tree-merged with
the NAMESPACE_DECL from 2.ii losi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587
Bug ID: 86587
Summary: Derived-type with attributes BIND(C) and PRIVATE
raises an error but standard accepts it
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86524
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Similarly, when changing:
- static_assert (!foo (&x, &x));
+ constexpr bool y = foo (&x, &x);
+ static_assert (!y);
I think the problem is that finish_static_assert evaluates the condition using
fold_non_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
Bug ID: 86586
Summary: [6/7/8/9 Regression] -Wsign-compare affects code
generation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58194
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-08-19 00:00:00 |2018-7-19
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86255
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58194
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86560
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jul 19 10:47:23 2018
New Revision: 262877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Change indirect_return to function type attribute
In
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86585
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-7-19
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86585
Bug ID: 86585
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in gen_member_die, at
dwarf2out.c:24935
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86524
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It works with if constexpr (__builtin_constant_p (x < y)) return x < y;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44408&action=edit
gcc9-pr86569.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86574
--- Comment #2 from tower120 ---
I can't provide a preprocessed source file, but "range/v3/view/transform.hpp"
source is here:
https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #38 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
The issue can be reproduced exactly, with pr77445-2.c. I am testing with making
is_digit() noinline.
* Reordering SINK before PRE
SPEC2006 data for building SPEC2006 with sink before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...and here is code that triggers the wrong path of the 2-byte case:
typedef struct S
{
const __flash2 struct S *p;
struct S *q;
} S;
const __flash2 S* func2 (const S *s)
{
return s->p->q->p;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86255
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 86580 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86250
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually three times, PR 86580 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86250
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
Summary|-Wimplicit-fallth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86255
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 86250 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
The real difference in -std=c++17 is _GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE. With -std=c++14,
we have many extern templates which the compiler almost never inlines. This
leaves existing inline functions small enough to be in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #5)
> Thanks for the rapid feedback. Very very interesting that -std=c++17 causes
> spew for the copy case https://godbolt.org/g/Xnrgg2, yet -std=c++14 or
> -std=c++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #14 from Tom de Vries ---
*** Bug 86582 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86582
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
