https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Oct 12 03:35:48 2018
New Revision: 265077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265077&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87364
* c-pretty-print.h (pp_c_type_cast): Prototype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87596
Bug ID: 87596
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
spill_hard_reg_in_range)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87156
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87156
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Oct 12 02:40:17 2018
New Revision: 265074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/87156
* cgraphclones.c (cgraph_node::create_versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Austin Morton from comment #7)
> I will certainly give writing a patch a try - but I will disclaim up front
> that because there is a viable workaround for the issue I was having (patch
> below [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82528
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82272
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 82528 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61961
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|New warning whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56763
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78330
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> Confirmed, there's not even a warning from -Wshadow:
>
> $ /usr/local/bin/g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Wshadow 78330.cc
> $
...although, clang++ doesn't say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87593
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Oct 12 01:42:08 2018
New Revision: 265073
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265073&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87593 - conflicting format_arg attributes on a declaration
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87582
--- Comment #5 from Chris Fretz ---
Wow! Thanks, that was super fast! Any idea which release this will be in? Or
just anything post 8.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87586
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The new failures mentioned in comment 22 might be fixed on trunk now (although
the disagreement about alignof(max_align_t) might mean it isn't).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 11 23:21:11 2018
New Revision: 265068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265068&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/77691 increase allocation size to at least alignment
It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87595
Bug ID: 87595
Summary: __tls_get_addr should be __attribute__((__noplt__))
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87586
--- Comment #2 from Gavin S ---
Bah - I feel stupid. So obvious once you pointed it out. Consider this closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87473
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Introduced by 136t.loopinit, still around at 172t.slsr:
[local count: 14598063]:
# qz_1 = PHI
# jl_22 = PHI
_8 = (unsigned int) jl_22;
_13 = _8 * _15;
qz_11 = (int) _13;
Looking through degene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think the following happens:
1. When the contained procedure is parsed, we print out an error for
"get_proc_name" - but this error is ignored; the symbol is pulled into the
current namespace and sym->refs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87593
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87594
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually I guess we don't have to care about fn4/fn5 very much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86829
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86829
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Oct 11 21:06:12 2018
New Revision: 265064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86829
* match.pd (sin (atan (x))): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87593
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Supporting format_arg for multiple arguments of a function isn't a mistake
or counter-intuitive at all. A correct declaration of the ngettext
function requires more than one format_arg att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87473
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
I have a patch under test now. This is not related, but I noticed that the
problem would not have been exposed except for the code coming in to the SLSR
patch containing a degenerate PHI with only one incomin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87594
Bug ID: 87594
Summary: constexpr rejects-valid code with range-based for-loop
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87594
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87593
Bug ID: 87593
Summary: conflicting format_arg attributes on a declaration
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87592
Bug ID: 87592
Summary: overriding attribute constructor and destructor
priority not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 11 19:37:28 2018
New Revision: 265059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-11 Tobias Burnus
Revert:
2018-10-09 Tobias B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87586
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87511
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Thu Oct 11 19:10:12 2018
New Revision: 265058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix PR87511
As mentioned in PR87511, the shift used in aarch64_mask_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84993
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84993
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Oct 11 19:03:33 2018
New Revision: 265056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: suggestions for misspelled private members (PR c++/84993)
PR c++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87582
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 8.3+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87550
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 8.3+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87414
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85070
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 18:35:52 2018
New Revision: 265053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85070
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr85070.C: Change effective t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85070
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 18:35:11 2018
New Revision: 265052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85070
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr85070.C: Change effective ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Svoboda from comment #8)
> A clarification:
> The SSE2 instructions are not new. (20 years old)
> Their use by the optimizer is (relatively) new. (between 4.8.5 and 4.9.4
> from my testing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87591
Bug ID: 87591
Summary: inconsistent spelling of attribute keyword and
attribute names
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87582
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 17:42:29 2018
New Revision: 265050
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265050&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87582
* typeck.c (maybe_warn_about_returning_addres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
--- Comment #8 from David Svoboda ---
A clarification:
The SSE2 instructions are not new. (20 years old)
Their use by the optimizer is (relatively) new. (between 4.8.5 and 4.9.4 from
my testing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87550
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 17:41:33 2018
New Revision: 265049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-10-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87414
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 17:40:31 2018
New Revision: 265048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265048&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-09-26 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86844
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 17:39:46 2018
New Revision: 265047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-09-12 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83375
--- Comment #9 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
It's in kernel/bpf/core.c
It won't happen every time on a build unless you force 1on1
partitioning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80538
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 11 16:37:23 2018
New Revision: 265044
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265044&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80538 Only call sleep for non-zero values
Avoid a system ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Note: As TER performs the propagation, a work-around is to compile with
-fno-tree-ter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> By the way, the original problem is fixed on trunk by one of my recent
> deferred length character patches. You will note that some of the failing
> testcases (eg. deferred_character_2[2,3].f90 test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87585
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
> Thus the patch is contrary to the standard and must be removed as soon
> as possible.
>
> Paul
By the way, the original problem is fixed on trunk by one of my recent deferred
length character patches. You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
Bug ID: 87589
Summary: [8/9 regression] index0-out.go FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86776
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avr at gjlay dot de
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87588
Bug ID: 87588
Summary: gcc does not warn about unused about unused variable
which references to itself
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87582
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 11 13:46:27 2018
New Revision: 265041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87582
* typeck.c (maybe_warn_about_returning_addres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
--- Comment #6 from James Carlson ---
"Partial strict" seems a stretch to me. The SSE2 instructions are relatively
new, as is their use by the optimizer. That makes this a surprising change in
behavior, particularly given that a vast quantity o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83375
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > This breaks Linux kernel LTO builds. I currently have a workaround
> > (disabling LTO for that file), but I don't think your "is not common"
> > argument is valid.
>
> Well, I guess pushing LTO into Linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
David Svoboda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87587
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. I'm pretty sure before r262824 it still failed, but with a different
warning about -Wabi not doing anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87587
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83375
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87587
Bug ID: 87587
Summary: [...]/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cxx11-shim_facets.cc:271:
28: error: empty class 'std::integral_constant' parameter passing ABI changes in
-fabi-version=12 (GCC 8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87584
James Legg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #3 from James Legg --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Smaller testcase from PR 87584
struct C
{
int operator[](int)
{
return 0;
}
int operator[](int) const
{
return 1;
}
};
temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlegg at feralinteractive dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67125
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antony at cosmologist dot info
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87580
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86576
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Unfortunately, the original still segfaults.
Not always on darwin:
% ./a.out
% ./a.out
% ./a.out
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87586
Bug ID: 87586
Summary: C++ code compiles with mismatched angle
brackets/parenthesis
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
Raphael Kubo da Costa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I admit I'm not a Fortran language lawyer, but I actually don't see why (:)(:)
is invalid.
It is not a substring non-terminal in that case, sure, because R908/R909
require parent-string to be array-element o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87585
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87585
Bug ID: 87585
Summary: Improve diagnostics message of -Woverflow
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87577
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Note this also breaks 465.tonto so allowing this with -flegacy or similar flag
would be appreciated (or help with patching tonto to valid code). Quoting:
ENSURE(all(ID(:)(1:1)=="_"),"CIF:find_looped_ite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not just a note, above that 9.9 note there is a normative text:
"If a substring-range appears in an array-section, each element is the
designated substring of the corresponding element of the array section."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87584
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Another thing is the too complicated alias check where for
> >
> > (gdb) p debug_data_reference (dr_a.dr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87577
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The test cases are invalid and need to be changed or removed.
See pr83522 comment 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This patch caused lots of regressions in the testsuite, see e.g.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2018-10/msg00062.html
See pr87577. This patch will likely break some more codes, e.g., pr87575
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87577
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried to tweak udr4.f90:
--- udr4.f90.jj 2018-03-27 12:55:12.401248156 +0200
+++ udr4.f902018-10-11 11:32:36.259912746 +0200
@@ -32,16 +32,22 @@
c(j,1,k) = trim(c(j,1,k)) // char (ichar ('0') + i)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87577
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 87575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 87575, which changed state.
Bug 87575 Summary: [9 Regression] compilation error for 465.tonto SPEC
benchmark since r264990
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87575
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87575
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87584
Bug ID: 87584
Summary: [8 regression] const overload ignored on operator[] in
captured by value object in template function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86815
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87577
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Jakub Jeli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87582
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
