https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #33)
> Those are all perfectly good arguments, but the problem ended up not having
> anything to do with std::launder or new implicit object creation rules or
> anyt
xe7843a ipa_write_summaries_2(opt_pass*, lto_out_decl_state*)
../../trunk.git/gcc/passes.c:2645
0xe76f5a ipa_write_summaries_1(lto_symtab_encoder_d*)
../../trunk.git/gcc/passes.c:2676
The bug first seems to appear sometime between 20200603 and
20200604.
I'll have a go at reducing the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80d6f89e78fc3b772701988cc73aa8e8006283be
commit r11-963-g80d6f89e78fc3b772701988cc73aa8e8006283be
Author: Richard Biener
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95538
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95525
cuilili changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95400
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Can we backport the change to active branches?
Backport to GCC9, GCC10.
Partially backport to GCC8.(drop tremont and tigerlake part).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95525
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:676250d6f9692a8e338bb758c808209ac6c00df1
commit r10-8245-g676250d6f9692a8e338bb758c808209ac6c00df1
Author: Cui,Lili
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95525
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c6931a353a6c41b2c9eb4bd2abec540104e940f
commit r11-962-g6c6931a353a6c41b2c9eb4bd2abec540104e940f
Author: Cui,Lili
Date: Thu Jun 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #18 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
See answers below.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> Created attachment 48677 [details]
> Work-in-progress patch
>
> I had a go at implementing this; attached is a work-in-progress pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95547
Bug ID: 95547
Summary: gdb pretty-printing of std::unique_ptr less helpful
than it could be
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have seen that too with -j8.
AFAICT the problem is that the test expects there is no file 'test.dat'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #10 from Bill Seurer ---
The combined patch cleans up the ICEs for both issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
--- Comment #12 from Joakim Tjernlund ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Do you have a reproducer you can share?
>
> I'll happily reopen the PR then, of course!
After 6 years, no I don't.
You could use the test case include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
Likely, want to include this in the commit if someone ever gets
around to committing the patch(es).
Index: gcc/fortran/misc.c
===
--- gcc/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546
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=95546
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546
Bug ID: 95546
Summary: Random Fortran test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92078
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2242ec0d3f1bb13c78ef3c21e0354d84fe57222
commit r11-960-gf2242ec0d3f1bb13c78ef3c21e0354d84fe57222
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2242ec0d3f1bb13c78ef3c21e0354d84fe57222
commit r11-960-gf2242ec0d3f1bb13c78ef3c21e0354d84fe57222
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #8 from Bill Seurer ---
Nope, still fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95136
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 95136, which changed state.
Bug 95136 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized on an array access with a variable
offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95136
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70987
Bug 70987 depends on bug 10138, which changed state.
Bug 10138 Summary: warn for uninitialized arrays passed as const* arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 10138, which changed state.
Bug 10138 Summary: warn for uninitialized arrays passed as const* arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95136
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b825a22890740f341eae566af27e18e528cd29a7
commit r11-959-gb825a22890740f341eae566af27e18e528cd29a7
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b825a22890740f341eae566af27e18e528cd29a7
commit r11-959-gb825a22890740f341eae566af27e18e528cd29a7
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rs-using
in the C++ Core Guidelines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is that 'using namespace std;' introduces an ambiguity. That is in
the user's code, there's nothing we can do in libstdc++ to avoid it.
We could add a different name for std::thread eg.
namesp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There is also SELECT_CC_MODE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
#include
#include
using namespace std;
int main(void)
{
int maxThreads = thread::hardware_concurrency();
printf("maxThreads: %d\n", maxThreads);
return(0);
}
$ g++ -pthread /tmp/n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Various things can change the comparison mode. simplify_compare_const
is the most prominent example (hrm, maybe the only one now?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #0)
> which creates an ambiguity when a user references thread:: without
> std::thread.
Could you show an example of code that's ambiguous?
> Would libstdc++ consi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 48679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48679&action=edit
Joint patch to fix the fallout reported in pr95530 and pr95537
Here's a clean patch that should fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
Bug ID: 95545
Summary: thread:: conflicts with std::thread
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Updated patch to deal with comments #1.
Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c (revision 280157)
+++ gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #7 from Bill Seurer ---
I used the wrong patch file, sorry.
This patch did not apply cleanly to current trunk.
patching file gcc/fortran/decl.c
Hunk #2 FAILED at 4285.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file gcc/fortran/de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #8 from Bill Seurer ---
Oops, no, they are different. But this one works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tromey at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #7 from Bill Seurer ---
The fortran.h patch (which looks to be the same one you asked about in pr95537)
works here:
make -k check-gcc-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90
# of expected passes3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #5 from Bill Seurer ---
Still fails:
make -k check-gcc-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
--- Comment #2 from Michael Bruck ---
I was using -Ofast -Wall:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/pAkVS8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
(also uploaded to
https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2020-06-04/0001-FIXME-WIP-on-extended-asm-support.patch
)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #42 from Niels Möller ---
Created attachment 48678
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48678&action=edit
Add a new pass for emitting the warning (not working)
Since adding a new pass seems to be the right way, I've gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 48677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48677&action=edit
Work-in-progress patch
I had a go at implementing this; attached is a work-in-progress prototype.
It works fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do you have a reproducer you can share?
I'll happily reopen the PR then, of course!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> What is the question? 4+4 = 16?
Ah, indeed - the question is why combine changes CCCmode compare to CCZmode
compare.
-o pr95090.s -fintrinsic-modules-path finclude
GNU Fortran (GCC) version 11.0.0 20200604 (experimental) [remotes/origin/HEAD
revision 0ddb93ce7:d48b471b9:7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5]
(powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 7.4.0, GMP version 6.1.0, MPFR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68837
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On Power9 the lwa insn is cracked into an lwz and an extsw, just like
on older CPUs. Cracked instructions have fewer constraints on p9 than
they did on most older CPUs though (it doesn't have to be firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #4 from Bill Seurer ---
Note that I did this run on a power 9 LE system.
-fdiagnostics-urls=never -fsecond-underscore
-ffat-lto-objects -fno-ident -o equiv_11.s -fintrinsic-modules-path finclude
GNU Fortran (GCC) version 11.0.0 20200604 (experimental) [remotes/origin/HEAD
revision 0ddb93ce7:d48b471b9:7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5]
(powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95520
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95505
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95518
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is the question? 4+4 = 16? Not all costs are included in
that "4+4" :-) It does look weird; patches welcome.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95517
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b45b400c51be06f2d0e37a7b461cbd4ce9fe37d
commit r10-8243-g6b45b400c51be06f2d0e37a7b461cbd4ce9fe37d
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e244b0acf3111c95bb1559e7610f84740b90589f
commit r10-8242-ge244b0acf3111c95bb1559e7610f84740b90589f
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ddb93ce77374004c49cdfbd748ba35867620cf1
commit r11-954-g0ddb93ce77374004c49cdfbd748ba35867620cf1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5
commit r11-955-g7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95510
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
The above is all the traceback a normal compiler build provided. I will try
building a debug version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
My bisect ended up at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=78307657cf9675bc4aa2e77561c823834714b4c8
$ git bisect bad
78307657cf9675bc4aa2e77561c823834714b4c8 is the first bad commit
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c727bdf4acf28c8315b119a1c8f6d6af745c2af
commit r11-953-g8c727bdf4acf28c8315b119a1c8f6d6af745c2af
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95346
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f2d05ef0142d269964e165c14c6f7fe4bdfd5a3
commit r11-952-g4f2d05ef0142d269964e165c14c6f7fe4bdfd5a3
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
Bug ID: 95544
Summary: ICE in gfc_can_put_var_on_stack, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:494
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
Bug ID: 95543
Summary: ICE in is_CFI_desc, at fortran/expr.c:1080
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95542
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95542
Bug ID: 95542
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:1649
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95541
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95541
Bug ID: 95541
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_dataptr_offset, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6909
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:364f46de9f02dc00e8ff51cc9e2662ae37520389
commit r10-8235-g364f46de9f02dc00e8ff51cc9e2662ae37520389
Author: Thomas Schwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c59837c89bd62e2addf4b34704a1ebe7e3bffab
commit r10-8236-g0c59837c89bd62e2addf4b34704a1ebe7e3bffab
Author: Thomas Schwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7ef9a40cd0c688cd331bc26224d1fbe360c1fe6
commit r11-951-ge7ef9a40cd0c688cd331bc26224d1fbe360c1fe6
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4662f7fe7863b19fcc20ba58c22880f8d6661f3a
commit r11-945-g4662f7fe7863b19fcc20ba58c22880f8d6661f3a
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af8fd1a99d9a21f8088ebb11250cd06a3f275052
commit r11-944-gaf8fd1a99d9a21f8088ebb11250cd06a3f275052
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #1 from Michael Bruck ---
"impossible" is too strong here, you can add another overload:
template struct std::coroutine_traits
{ using promise_type = pt; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92103, which changed state.
Bug 92103 Summary: constraints not checked on nested class template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
What|Removed |Added
---
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
