https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95825
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10/11 Regression]|[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95832
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
cppreference and libstdc++ both need to be updated to implement
http://wg21.link/p1957
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95708
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95585
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 42693, which changed state.
Bug 42693 Summary: Missing gcc-internal-format on messages from gfc_arith_error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274
Bug 52274 depends on bug 42693, which changed state.
Bug 42693 Summary: Missing gcc-internal-format on messages from gfc_arith_error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90594
Hsiao-Hui Chiu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hailey.chiu at sifive dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abcde0a658e17dbbabcb396eaae5a3612e07d401
commit r11-1595-gabcde0a658e17dbbabcb396eaae5a3612e07d401
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95586
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:384aa890255dc01ba6d6529b127975c2c9a49a3c
commit r11-1594-g384aa890255dc01ba6d6529b127975c2c9a49a3c
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95832
--- Comment #1 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/variant/variant says that
"If T_i is (possibly cv-qualified) bool, F(T_i) is only considered if
std::decay_t (until C++20)std::remove_cvref_t (since C++20) is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95832
Bug ID: 95832
Summary: std::vector specialization leading std::variant
ctor treating it as int rather than bool
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95676
--- Comment #3 from James McCoy ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> So what do you think is wrong with the code? Sorry, I don't have time to
> try to second guess what's going on.
>
> How did you configure the compiler? What o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95831
Bug ID: 95831
Summary: Wrong line number in " -Wconversion" warning message
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression][MIPS/MSA] |[11 regression][MIPS/MSA]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
Bug ID: 95830
Summary: [10 regression][MIPS/MSA] internal compiler error: in
do_store_flag, at expr.c:12247 start with
gcc-11-1445-g502d63b6d61
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
No problem (and no inconvenience either).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92702
--- Comment #2 from Yao Liu ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> The following restriction of F2003 is also gone:
>
> C528 (R501) If the VALUE attribute is specified, the length type parameter
> values shall be omitted or specifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #7 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Thanks Martin, explanation and sample clarified the issue for me.
Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 95818, which changed state.
Bug 95818 Summary: wrong "used uninitialized" warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #5 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Got it, 'iavf_ethdev.i' attached.
I am able to reproduce with command [1] and got the output [2] using .i file.
[1]
/usr/local/gcc-latest/bin/gcc -m64 -pthread -march=native -O3 -Wall -Werror
-Wno-strict-ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #4 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 48772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48772&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95803
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95760
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
I took another look, and it turns out that the should_duplicate_loop_header_p
for size/speed is not the only issue. There is also an issue in
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c when computing iv costs. With speed, the +4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Fix looks simple enough:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dependency.c b/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
index f6c68409e68..7edd5d9010d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
@@ -2031,10 +2031
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Priority|P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95826
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95198
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
Bug ID: 95829
Summary: Bogus error with additional blanks in type(*)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95828
Bug ID: 95828
Summary: ICE in resolve_select_rank, at fortran/resolve.c:9774
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95827
Bug ID: 95827
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_string, at fortran/iresolve.c:70
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95826
Bug ID: 95826
Summary: ICE in gfc_match_decl_type_spec, at
fortran/decl.c:4290
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95825
Bug ID: 95825
Summary: [7/8/9/10/11 Regression] boost::optional
-Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95789
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95707
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dd2fd9c4350529947fffc6bf257b5e22379554b
commit r10-8341-g4dd2fd9c4350529947fffc6bf257b5e22379554b
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ece7b4d5f0cef0811ee1a0ebbf00ba41c5cf080c
commit r10-8338-gece7b4d5f0cef0811ee1a0ebbf00ba41c5cf080c
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95688
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9056a5f1874eb85c74e439c4058b1e5c936b
commit r10-8340-g9056a5f1874eb85c74e439c4058b1e5c936b
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f067cc55d382c256308f85575bca3e42fe215541
commit r10-8339-gf067cc55d382c256308f85575bca3e42fe215541
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Richard said "complete", that is the whole .i file, not just one random
function. If we cannot reproduce the issue by copying your code and compiling
it, we can't do anything about your report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95587
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c00ca04ba7e46d2d59e5a4f95ee7121cdc4ba224
commit r10-8337-gc00ca04ba7e46d2d59e5a4f95ee7121cdc4ba224
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95805
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95824
Bug ID: 95824
Summary: [coroutines] compiler crash
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95823
Bug ID: 95823
Summary: [coroutines] compiler internal error in
captures_temporary,
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93788
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95822
Bug ID: 95822
Summary: [coroutines] compiler internal error with local object
with noexcept false destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
Bug ID: 95821
Summary: Failure to optimize strchr to use memchr for string
constant
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #29)
> Created attachment 48771 [details]
> Testcase without lambda coroutines
>
> I modified the testcase to also build with clang and not depend on async
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48723|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Thanks for the pointers. Putting the mangled name in a target-specific
attribute (like we do for SVE) seems to fix it. It actually also keeps
the testcase in comment 4 “working”, which is une
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:10:25AM +, drikosev at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Ev Drikos ---
>
> Hello,
>
> Perhaps, an additional check in file resolve.c might be necessary, or
> one wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #6)
> My team nowadays are focusing on improving the quality of mature compilers.
> We just developed a tool to test them and then found those bugs. Our method
> might no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r11-1582 PASS for me x_2.i and original (non-reduced) compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95708
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:647340c92a042e8e6f7d004637f07060dbde49c0
commit r11-1586-g647340c92a042e8e6f7d004637f07060dbde49c0
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #2)
> Whew, this part IS can of worms. Will investigate it.
Great. The testcase I provided came from a C source code generator
called ccg.
Here is another C test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #2 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
.i output [1] and .s output [2] below, please let me know if the request was
something else.
[1]
int
iavf_dev_link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
__attribute__((__unused__)) int wait_to_complete)
{
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #0)
> $g++ -w -fpermissive small.cc
Here is a mistake, and it should be
$g++ -w -fpermissive bug.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
Bug ID: 95820
Summary: ICE in splice_late_return_type, at cp/pt.c:29034
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95819
Bug ID: 95819
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
--- Comment #3 from Yichao Yu ---
And for backward compatibility maybe
`target_clones("(sse4.1,arch=core2),default")` would work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #6 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> What practical impact does this have on any real world code?
> Why should we spend time on that, rather than the million other things we
> have to fix?
Hi, Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95054
Marcel Breyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94260
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95262
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95791
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
--- Comment #2 from Yichao Yu ---
I only tested this with `target_clones` and it seems that I misread the
document for `target`. So this is only an issue with `target_clones` attribute.
`target` support this just fine.
So to be more clear, using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95775
--- Comment #2 from Yichao Yu ---
> But it will blow up code-size considerably.
> So without some major work I don't think simply slapping target_clones on
> each function is going to fly in practice.
I mean, it'll blow up not much more than th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95798
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Partially related, using the following -O2 -fno-ipa-icf:
void
foo (int x, int *p)
{
p[x + 1] = 1;
}
void
bar (int x, int *p)
{
p[x + 1UL] = 1;
}
void
baz (int x, int *p)
{
unsigned long l = x;
l++;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
Bug ID: 95818
Summary: wrong "used uninitialized" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95791
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9302421e71e85b4d3766a534ed9e1c4ae1e7a6ca
commit r11-1585-g9302421e71e85b4d3766a534ed9e1c4ae1e7a6ca
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Jun 20 16:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95585
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9aed5f1ccffc019ddf980e349caa3d092755cb4
commit r11-1584-gd9aed5f1ccffc019ddf980e349caa3d092755cb4
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c7ae01349f779f1d4e66d8831052ee59f9c948b
commit r10-8336-g2c7ae01349f779f1d4e66d8831052ee59f9c948b
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95817
Bug ID: 95817
Summary: Failure to optimize shift with constant to compare
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95792
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d57bf2315e024ada3393ad967e8f632121383c9c
commit r11-1583-gd57bf2315e024ada3393ad967e8f632121383c9c
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95798
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps the change should be guarded on single_use?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95798
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Initialization co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95816
Bug ID: 95816
Summary: Aarch64 jumps between Hot/Cold sections use possibly
clobbered registers x16/x17
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95815
Bug ID: 95815
Summary: Infinite recursive error about "demangle_args"
"demangle_nested_args" in libiberty when running
cxxfilt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95814
Bug ID: 95814
Summary: Failure to optimize __builtin_ia32_rsqrtss properly
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf07eea8429c923b7eb884ffc1b267c80a0a839c
commit r11-1582-gcf07eea8429c923b7eb884ffc1b267c80a0a839c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #4 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The ill-formed template is not diagnosed unless you instantiate it.
> That is allowed by the standard.
Thank you Jonathan, thanks for your response.
As other maj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48769&action=edit
gcc11-pr95810.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I think it is rejected at instanition time.
>
> Hi, Andrew. Shouldn't it be rejected at compiling time?
It could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95813
Bug ID: 95813
Summary: Making static member function a coroutine may cause
"defined but not used" warning for destroy(frame*)
function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo