https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108602
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #23 from Michael Meissner ---
This is one of those things where there is no right answer in part because we
need other things to flesh out the support.
The reason -mvsx was used is we need the VSX registers to build the IEEE
128-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114709
Bug ID: 114709
Summary: Incorrect handling of inactive union member access via
pointer to member in constant evaluated context
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114460
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107105
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Bug ID: 114708
Summary: Creating access to an incomplete formal in a generic
package sometimes causes GNAT to crash
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105293
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80419
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114696
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114702
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And does
extern void g( int);
void f( int mant, int sticky)
{
mant = mant >> 1 ;
mant = mant >> 1 | (mant & 1);
mant = mant >> 1 | (mant & 1) | (!!sticky);
mant = !!sticky;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I tried this code:
extern void g( int);
void f( int mant, int sticky)
{
mant = mant >> 1 ;
mant = mant >> 1 | (mant & 1);
mant = mant >> 1 | (mant & 1) | !!sticky;
mant =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114707
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=114707
Bug ID: 114707
Summary: Mark TARGET_EXPRs for function arguments eliding
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #28 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I do not fully understand yet what happens for may_alias, but it if we later
complete the struct with the may_alias attribute it seems we would also need to
update the previously created pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57931|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #21 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk. I'll let it burn-in there for a bit before backporting to the
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa57af93ba22865be747f926e4e5f219e7f8758a
commit r14-9949-gaa57af93ba22865be747f926e4e5f219e7f8758a
Author: Will Schmidt
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE - std::bit_cast in |ICE - std::bit_cast in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113141
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df7bfdb7dbf2d46aa5768a0280d4dcfcc868b7f9
commit r14-9947-df7bfdb7dbf2d46aa5768a0280d4dcfcc868b7f9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113141
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d435571b54b02946c97b5b24f20e5a7058fd96a1
commit r14-9946-gd435571b54b02946c97b5b24f20e5a7058fd96a1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
lorer/gcc-trunk-20240412/include/c++/14.0.1/bit:94:33:
internal compiler error: in native_encode_initializer, at fold-const.cc:8468
94 | return __builtin_bit_cast(_To, __from);
| ^~~
0x267826c internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0xa58c63 fancy_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114303
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99426, which changed state.
Bug 99426 Summary: [modules] failed to read compiled module cluster 1186: Bad
file data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 99426, which changed state.
Bug 99426 Summary: [modules] failed to read compiled module cluster 1186: Bad
file data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:716af95fd454871473c4b118b8412b6a68459b75
commit r14-9948-716af95fd454871473c4b118b8412b6a68459b75
Author: Patrick Palka
c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 93595, which changed state.
Bug 93595 Summary: [c++20] function call, substitution failure of template
parameter with a lambda default in template context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
commit r14-9938-081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
Author: Patrick Palka
c++: te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107457
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug 107430 depends on bug 107457, which changed state.
Bug 107457 Summary: ICE when template lambda alias used as default template
argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107457
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107457
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57937&action=edit
c_sizeof_8.f90
Here's a testcase derived from comment#0.
Feel free to adapt it to your meet your n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d74fe10b13336b9de2e025ced4af00a25ff1d3e7
commit r14-9943-d74fe10b13336b9de2e025ced4af00a25ff1d3e7
Author: Patrick Palka
c++: te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
commit r14-9938-081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
Author: Patrick Palka
c++: te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114691
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91146346f57cc54dfeb2669347edd0eb3d13af7f
commit r14-9944-g91146346f57cc54dfeb2669347edd0eb3d13af7f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114676
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
P1->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
--- Comment #17 from Carlos Eduardo Seo ---
Noted. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114705
Bug ID: 114705
Summary: [DR 2763] Warn about [[noreturn]] that returns during
constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Carlos Eduardo Seo from comment #15)
> I see some failures after this patch on aarch64-linux-gnu:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr54693-2.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects -DP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
Carlos Eduardo Seo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos.seo at linaro dot org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
Carlos Eduardo Seo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos.seo at linaro dot org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113499
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fd824d717ca901319864a5eeba4e62b278f8329
commit r14-9942-g0fd824d717ca901319864a5eeba4e62b278f8329
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114666
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245595d72818526e2ca857848831e8afa87ae2de
commit r14-9941-g245595d72818526e2ca857848831e8afa87ae2de
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #26)
> Note that not updating the types seems wrong also pre C23. PR114493 could be
> an example of this:
>
> typedef struct a a;
> int c;
> int f(a **);
> struct __attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #26 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that not updating the types seems wrong also pre C23. PR114493 could be an
example of this:
typedef struct a a;
int c;
int f(a **);
struct __attribute__((__may_alias__)) a {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57935
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57935&action=edit
gcc14-pr114574.patch
What about this patch then? So far just make check-gcc -j32 checked (though in
a versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114696
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113499
--- Comment #6 from Arthur Cohen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> > If I understood Arthur correctly, GCC/Rust is going to effectively require
> > 'dlopen' (and therefore '--enabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114704
Bug ID: 114704
Summary: Missed optimization : eliminate store if the value is
known in all predecessors
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112914
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ~7-9% exec |~7-9% exec time regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114703
Bug ID: 114703
Summary: Missed devirtualization in rather simple case
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114702
Bug ID: 114702
Summary: Missed optimization: fail to infer c - b != if a + b
!= c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114608
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114621
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114676
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #29 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong pair of insns. The earlier store to that
location was insn 111.
111: [r212:SI (1 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] = {r0:SI..r3:SI}
It appears that the problem is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114701
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-12
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114696
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
I think that adjusting an existing upper bound by -1 because of gap peeling
is wrong when that upper bound may not apply to the IV exit. Because gap
peeling only affects the IV exit test and not the early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #27)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #26)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > > I think it's more interesting why
> > >
> > > * 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #26 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> That means, when the loop takes the early exit we _must_ take that during
> the vector iterations. Peeling for gaps means if we would take the early
> exit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #27 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #26)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > I think it's more interesting why
> >
> > * 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] =
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #11)
> I think it doesn't mean that's not a bug with -ftrapv, it should preserve
> all overflow traps. Because it doesn't work, we use -fsanitize=undefined
> instead of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But guess that won't shut up cppcheck, I'd think it wants | (!!sticky) instead
of
| !!sticky. Haven't tried though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #24 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> Maybe easier to understand testcase:
>
> with -O3 -msse4.1 -fno-vect-cost-model we return 20 instead of 8. Adding
> -fdisable-tree-cunroll avoids the issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Nevertheless it's better for clarity to parentize >> inside |.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe easier to understand testcase:
long x[9];
long a[20];
struct { long x; long b[40]; } b;
int __attribute__((noipa))
foo (int n)
{
int i = 0;
int k = 0;
do
{
if (x[k++]) // early exit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #26 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I think it's more interesting why
>
> * 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] =
> {r0:SI..r3:SI}
>
> isn't considered as dependence? Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually I had another look.
Jason said in the c++: fix in-charge parm in constexpr mail back in December
(as well as in the r14-6507 commit message):
"Since a class with vbases can't have constexpr 'tors t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114695
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Piquet ---
Note that MSVC latest now also fails this last sample regardless of the
language version (but the error differs from C++17 to C++20). Clang (>= 5.0.0)
still happily accepts it, on both versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114695
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Piquet ---
Interesting. Now I think the issue may actually be caused by pack expansion on
the call site. The issue also happens when Foo only has one base class, albeit
with a different error that at least has concise
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
