https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
--- Comment #3 from Tomoya Suzuki ---
Perhaps I should ask the question in libc instead of gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
--- Comment #2 from Tomoya Suzuki ---
I Sorry I didn't follow your bug report guidelines. After this, I investigated
the cause by myself, and it seems that there is a difference in the output of
the std::shuffle function. Even if the input and r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
--- Comment #11 from David Ledger ---
This did not occur with GCC 10.2, it started in GCC 10.3:
10.3 (https://godbolt.org/z/jrdv31M17):
```
0x15d1ed3 A
0x15d1ed2 ~A
0x15d1ed3 ~A
```
10.2 (https://godbolt.org/z/rrvKh9h6K):
```
0x2322ed1 A
0x2322
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
Bug ID: 107660
Summary: Running binaries compiled with g++11 or later produces
different results than g++ version 10 or earlier
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
--- Comment #8 from lo1ol ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua3TiOSwVTI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should be fixed now, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7f51059fb009dcd7d491d6b2164bce75dbd9975
commit r13-3917-ga7f51059fb009dcd7d491d6b2164bce75dbd9975
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107659
Bug ID: 107659
Summary: C procedure with no global scope is seen as global
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107653
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I thought it went one layer deap but nope it is kinda of random.
> For an example:
> Not split up:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/target-macros/register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107653
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought it went one layer deap but nope it is kinda of random.
For an example:
Not split up:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/target-macros/register-classes.html
Splitted up:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107658
Bug ID: 107658
Summary: TARGET_EXPAND_TO_RTL_HOOK, TARGET_INSTANTIATE_DECLS,
TARGET_MANGLE_TYPE don't really belong in the Storage
Layout target hook section
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107634
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
One of the biggest drawbacks of not having one file is when you need to add a
new section, you have to add a new file/directory rather than edditing one
file.
I also noticed the splitting up sections of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107634
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I came across a related issue here:
Take:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gccint/C_002b_002b-ABI.html
The original section name was just C++-ABI but had a heading of C++ ABI
parameters
Now post sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107657
Bug ID: 107657
Summary: PROMOTE_MODE, TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE,
TARGET_FUNCTION_VALUE and TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE
should describe better their interactions
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107656
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
.. c:macro:: PROMOTE_MODE (m, unsignedp, type)
.. function:: enum flt_eval_method TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION (enum
excess_precision_type type)
It is really hard to tell the difference in the generated page
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107656
Bug ID: 107656
Summary: post sphinx conversion, can't tell between a target
macro or a target hook
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: doc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107655
Bug ID: 107655
Summary: [meta-bug] tracker bug for issues encountered in the
texinfo-to-sphinx migration
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8214ec0cf33482f60139ae18a40567317e63c1ff
commit r13-3915-g8214ec0cf33482f60139ae18a40567317e63c1ff
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107576
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Partial fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
index b95c5cf2f96..f09fad337bc 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
@@ -6193,6 +6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As I said in Bug 107632 comment 2:
I'm kinda tempted to just disable the new optimization on these targets, the
handling of compat facets for different float ABIs is impossible to get right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107576
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am still wondering if this is really invalid code.
null(z) has the same characteristics as z, see F2018:16.9.144
So is there really a mismatch of arguments?
Second, just one observation: since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107654
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
cppdiropts.rst cppenv.rst cppopts.rst cppwarnopts.rst
Also maybe should not be in the toplevel directory.
Maybe place them in libcpp instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107654
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107654
Bug ID: 107654
Summary: [13 Regression] md.rst should be in gcc/doc and not in
doc
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch implements -Wanalyzer-infinite-recursion for GCC 13.
I also have the beginnings of an implementation of -Wanalyzer-infinite-loop,
but it won't be ready for the close of GCC 13 stage 1.
Keep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107653
Bug ID: 107653
Summary: how-to-use-inline-assembly-language-in-c-code page is
huge and should be split up
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107651
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the install page, one index should be index of configure option and another
one will be of the env variables.
For the preprocessor has an index of env variables too.
Maybe even in the main document you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107652
Bug ID: 107652
Summary: c++20 gccchoses incorrect operator== overload
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12c583a2a3da798e82737c2d0e11fd686636cfeb
commit r13-3912-g12c583a2a3da798e82737c2d0e11fd686636cfeb
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107651
Bug ID: 107651
Summary: Having two different kind of indexes is very useful
still
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107650
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The side bar has issues with the text being so much bigger and popping out
compared to the main text. Plus when I scroll it, the search and icon part just
takes up so much of it, the side bar becomes not ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107649
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although if the _GLIBCXX_FLOAT_IS_IEEE_BINARY32 macro is not defined, it will
still be ambiguous, because we won't define these overloads:
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX
#if defined(__STDCPP_FLOAT16_T__) &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107650
Bug ID: 107650
Summary: Sphinx generated web pages don't have up (to the
section index)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107649
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-11
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107649
Bug ID: 107649
Summary: New std::complex specializations are never used
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105300
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=107648
Bug ID: 107648
Summary: RFE: add an attribute for indicating
security-sensitive data
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107633
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/605800.html, if
accepted, should help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT has to be defined (if not already defined) in each
file that uses it too.
fold-const.cc:#ifndef LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT
tree-ssa-ifcombine.cc:#ifndef LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
A --param option was added in 2018 to override the setting of
LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT :
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02604.html
But the way it is implemented is such that the ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107523
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107523
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a7b437ca71e2721e9bcf070762fc54ef7991aeb
commit r13-3911-g0a7b437ca71e2721e9bcf070762fc54ef7991aeb
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107645
--- Comment #1 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ICE in the reproducer is generated when predicate 'symbolic_operand' is applied
to the 'const' node in the following rtl:
(insn 342 341 343 35 (set (reg:SI 97)
(mem/u:SI (plus:SI (reg:S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-11
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105221
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106061
Yann Droneaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yann at droneaud dot fr
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52672be7d328df50f9a05ce3ab44ebcae50fee1b
commit r13-3910-g52672be7d328df50f9a05ce3ab44ebcae50fee1b
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Sure, but I was talking specifically about the pattern matching introduced
> by that commit.
The general rule for pattern matching is if you don't have a FM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jengelh at inai dot de
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b331bf303bdc1edead41e2b3d11d1a7804b433cf
commit r13-3909-gb331bf303bdc1edead41e2b3d11d1a7804b433cf
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Sure, but I was talking specifically about the pattern matching introduced by
that commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107597
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
What happens is that we read the symbol as:
Visibility: externally_visible semantic_interposition
prevailing_def_ironly_exp public weak comdat comdat_group:_ZN12NonTemplated1xE
one_only
While in visibili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107491
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I would suggest adding a new field to the GODEBUG parsing in
go/runtime/runtime1.go and then calling a new C function defined in
libgo/runtime/proc.c to store the value in a C static variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> > Nice catch, thanks for the report. This is due to g:7d810646d421
> >
> > The documentation should clarify th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> Nice catch, thanks for the report. This is due to g:7d810646d421
>
> The documentation should clarify that patterns correspond to basic fma
> instructions (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107641
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Summary|GCC 12.2.0 may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
--- Comment #1 from bartoldeman at users dot sourceforge.net ---
According to godbolt it's still producing FMAs on trunk:
https://godbolt.org/z/aWh6d1E4E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
Bug ID: 107647
Summary: GCC 12.2.0 may produce FMAs even with
-ffp-contract=off
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107634
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
In particular, reference-count checking would probably be the most interesting
aspect of the project.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107634
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
Bug ID: 107646
Summary: RFE: can we reimplement gcc-python-plugin's cpychecker
as a -fanalyzer plugin?
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107644
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note sphinx is not the only one which hates my ultrawide screen too. Madoko
hates it too as witness by
https://p4.org/p4-spec/docs/P4-16-working-spec.html#sec-actions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107645
Bug ID: 107645
Summary: internal compiler error: RTL check: expected elt 0
type 'e' or 'u', have 'E' (rtx unspec) in
symbolic_operand_1, at config/m68k/predicates.md:144
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107641
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcel at codesourcery dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107644
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107644
Bug ID: 107644
Summary: [13 Regression] Sphinx generated web pages is not
using the full width of the window
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107643
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I had used these to find the options and other keywords for GCC 12 manual all
the time. Because searching to find the right page is hard. Especially if it is
2 layers down.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107643
Bug ID: 107643
Summary: [13 Regression] sphix generated indexes are not
working at all
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642
Bug ID: 107642
Summary: LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT vs BRANCH_COST confusion
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation, internal-improvement,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107638
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107641
Bug ID: 107641
Summary: libgomp/env.c:286:20: error: cast from pointer to
integer of different size
[-Werror=pointer-to-int-cast]
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107640
Bug ID: 107640
Summary: IPA-CP drops known values passed by reference when the
reference is to a global variable
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107620
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107634
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I thought at one point we were producing also one big HTML for the manual
but maybe that was just binutils.
Also sphinx does not produce postscript? Just PDFs? Seems a downgrade.
And yes I used to go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107639
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Muizelaar ---
This test case comes from https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56612
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107639
Bug ID: 107639
Summary: GCC unable to reason about range of idx/len
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #24 from Sam Mish ---
> Good! Can you please provide steps how to build the reproducer project?
Unfortunately, this project uses a large and unconventional build system, so
it's difficult to reproduce. I could upload the `.ii` files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107636
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107633
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually, the patch I plan to post in a little bit should fix the problem above
because the reference we're initializing here is non-const.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107638
Bug ID: 107638
Summary: [13 Regression] options.h:239:36: error: token "." is
not valid in preprocessor expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107622
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(Wilhelm, when you post testcases, please post the full file including the
#include lines)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Did you try -fstrict-enums?
IIUC, even if optimizations using -fstric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107633
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I thought this had been fixed by
commit 32a06ce38a38bf37db468f0e6c83520fcc221534
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue Nov 1 17:05:52 2022 -0400
c++: Quash -Wdangling-reference for member operator* [PR107
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107637
Bug ID: 107637
Summary: C++23: Implement P2644R1 - Final Fix of Broken
Range‐based for Loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107636
--- Comment #1 from Enrico Seiler ---
The `#define`s can also be omitted. Then the error will occur when compiling
with -std=c++23
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo