https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |10.0
Known to fail|
(struct s); p++)
> printf("%d", *p);
> printf("\n");
> }
> --
>
> Results:
>
> --
> $ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra test.c && ./a.out
>
> $ gcc -std=c11 -pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92516
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Agreed.
Since code is fine with -O2, but not with -O3, then
it looks like an optimiser problem to me.
About 2 hours of reduction has already been done. More is in progress.
Current size is about 2.2 Megs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
>
> --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I have another idea, cant we add fake fie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=951
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=951
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
Update: the last bug that was open that this bug depends upon has been closed.
So, ok to close this one as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=951
Bug 951 depends on bug 26241, which changed state.
Bug 26241 Summary: [8/9 Regression] None of the IPA passes are documented in
passes.texi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90466
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Ok, this shouldn't be too hard. I guess I could implement it for GCC 10.
last chance to get it in before stage 1 closes...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92132
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92098
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92524
Bug ID: 92524
Summary: ICE in short program with constexpr and std::array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92523
Bug ID: 92523
Summary: Unhelpful error messages when requires-clause contains
function call
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92403, which changed state.
Bug 92403 Summary: [concepts] requires expression in if constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92403
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 92403, which changed state.
Bug 92403 Summary: [concepts] requires expression in if constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92403
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92186
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pilarlatiesa at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92403
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92439
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80105
Bug 80105 depends on bug 69728, which changed state.
Bug 69728 Summary: [7 Regression] internal compiler error: in
outer_projection_mupa, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 69728, which changed state.
Bug 69728 Summary: [7 Regression] internal compiler error: in
outer_projection_mupa, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80069
Bug 80069 depends on bug 69728, which changed state.
Bug 69728 Summary: [7 Regression] internal compiler error: in
outer_projection_mupa, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83325
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Is it still an issue? I cannot reproduce it anywhere anymore. Maybe related
PR82952 could be more appropriate for tracking it further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
--- Comment #24 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
closing this since no need backport?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92522
Bug ID: 92522
Summary: valid code using deque throws bad_alloc when compiled
with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92507
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91182
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92521
Bug ID: 92521
Summary: [[deprecated(("string-literal"))]] accepted with extra
parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-inval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92520
Bug ID: 92520
Summary: new test case gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/inline-9.c in
r278220 is unresolved
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92519
Bug ID: 92519
Summary: Spurious "note: ... has no user-provided default
constructor"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
-
Results:
--
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra test.c && ./a.out
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.c && ./a.out
1222
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sylvain Korzennik from comment #11)
> I'll try rebuilding it w/ ./configure
> --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Or let GCC build them for you, by putting their sources in the GCC source tree,
as re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #39 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #38)
> Internally in GCC the symver is handled just as normal alias only output
> differntly. I think GCC, just like static linker, does not really need
> to understand th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92518
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92518
Bug ID: 92518
Summary: [10 regression] ppc rounding tests fail on power 7
(only) after r278207
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size t, .-t
.symver t, bar@2.2
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.0 20191114 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
Internally it defines a new kind of alias (symver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #37 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66825
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
--- Comment #1 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Seems r269139 can be reverted, that's apparently a patch to fix some accidental
breakage due to depending on a too new MPFR version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92516
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92516
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Problem first seems to occur sometime between revision 278200
and 278250.
Code reduction now in progress, but since the size of the partially
reduced code is currently 5.4 Megs, this is expected to take qu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80646
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92517
Bug ID: 92517
Summary: ICE on incorrect syntax involving requires and
decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92516
Bug ID: 92516
Summary: ice in vect_schedule_slp_instance, at
tree-vect-slp.c:4095
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92263
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92515
Bug ID: 92515
Summary: [10 regression] ICE in many test cases after r278235
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Current patch (modulo testsuite changes) that seems to work pretty well:
diff --git gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c
index 76d1e4a380e..9766d7f96c4 100644
--- gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Nov 14 19:24:21 2019
New Revision: 278262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Tweak gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-4[01].c (PR92366)
gcc.dg/vect/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91366
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #11 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
Thx - for GMP, /config.guess returns
skylake-pc-linux-gnu
not
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
hence the mess... I'll try rebuilding it w/ ./configure
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Cheers,
Sylvain
--
On Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92506
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Thu Nov 14 19:02:48 2019
New Revision: 278259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-14 Andrew MacLeod
PR tree-optimization/92506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sylvain Korzennik from comment #9)
> 1- that page does not tell me how to build a generic version
>./config.guess returns the same value on ea machine, as does gcc
> -dumpmachine
> x86_64-pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #9 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
1- that page does not tell me how to build a generic version
./config.guess returns the same value on ea machine, as does gcc
-dumpmachine
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
do I add --build=XX --host-XX or --target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Please read:
> https://gmplib.org/manual/Build-Options.html
NOTE also if you compile GMP/MPF/MPC as part of the GCC build, it will do the
correct thing and compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #6 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
Thanks for your prompt replies!
1- we use a NSF mounted disk to serve ~90 servers (~4100 cores), w/ a
set of diff CPUs. It does compile fine on the server the code was
built on.
2- what flags do I use t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #5 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
Thanks for your prompt replies!
1- we use a NSF mounted disk to serve ~90 servers (~4100 cores), w/ a set
of diff CPUs. It does compile fine on the server the code was built on.
2- what flags do I use t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #17 from Aleksei Voitylov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> Have you tested gcc 7.5.0 that was just released? How about gcc 8.x? Have
> you tried that. There has been aliasing bugs in gcc before and this might
> alr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is your MPFR/GMP/MPC compiled on a different computer and then copied over? If
so you need an extra configure flag to them; otherwise they will be compiled
for that computer (CPU) and will not always work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #3 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
=> gcc-9.2.0/do-configure.sou <==
module load gcc/8.2.0
./configure --prefix=/share/apps/tools/gcc/9.2.0 \
--enable-shared \
--disable-multilib \
--enable-threads=posix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
--- Comment #2 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
==> gcc-9.2.0/do-configure.sou <==
module load gcc/8.2.0
./configure --prefix=/share/apps/tools/gcc/9.2.0 \
--enable-shared \
--disable-multilib \
--enable-threads=posi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88226
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92501
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92514
Bug ID: 92514
Summary: limits:1668:7: internal compiler error: Illegal
instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92506
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 47265
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47265&action=edit
patch to resolve the issue
Traced it back to a typo in operator_abs::fold_range() when I did the
conversion wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
--- Comment #7 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Thu Nov 14 16:40:33 2019
New Revision: 278254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make flag_thread_jumps a gate of pass_jump_after_combine
This is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have another idea, cant we add fake field decls while doing structure layout?
Then sra total scalarization will just work. And there is no other magic in the
compiler needed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 14, 2019 5:11:55 PM GMT+01:00, "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
>
>--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
>While I don't share th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
While I don't share this preference about assignments, SRA only
ignores padding when doing "total scalarization" aka the poor man's
aggregate copy propagation because in that mode it would have to
invent smal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92511
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92509
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@nicholas-schwab.de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92512
Bug ID: 92512
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gimple_op, at gimple.h:2436
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92513
Bug ID: 92513
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name,
have integer_cst in maybe_replace_use, at
tree-into-ssa.c:1817
Product: gcc
Version: 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92511
Bug ID: 92511
Summary: [OpenACC] Support subset subarray mappings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, patch
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83361
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92163
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
Bug ID: 92510
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in native_encode_rtx, at
simplify-rtx.c:6272
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> I can't find PRE doing anything wrong and on 32bit x86_64 the testcase
> executes
> correctly with GCC 7.3 and GCC 9 (when I add the missing return to
> Bar::cmpxchg).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92509
Bug ID: 92509
Summary: auto deduction on different types does not emit
diagnostic message
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> > > The quux case: CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING is cleared here
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654
--- Comment #8 from Hossein Talebi ---
Hi Paul,
Thanks for following up on this. I actually changed my programming language
for this bug, just kidding :-).
Cheers
Hossein
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 16:05 pault at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Bug 80520 depends on bug 80491, which changed state.
Bug 80491 Summary: [7 Regression] Compiler regression for long-add case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
Bug 79173 depends on bug 80491, which changed state.
Bug 80491 Summary: [7 Regression] Compiler regression for long-add case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> > The quux case: CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING is cleared here
> >
> > 2154 /* The result of a constexpr function must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
--- Comment #26 from Arseny Solokha ---
This this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> The quux case: CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING is cleared here
>
> 2154 /* The result of a constexpr function must be completely initialized.
> */
> 2155 if (TREE_CO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64397
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Dear Hossein,
This news is probably 1,379 days too late for you - I am just about to post a
fix for this bug. I do apologise for the long delay but, for some reason, I saw
the problem right away today having f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144
--- Comment #12 from Arseny Solokha ---
I believe this PR can be closed, per comment 9 (and likely comment 7).
1 - 100 of 631 matches
Mail list logo