https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118451
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Yeah the testcase was broken before, it was failing but not because of the
reason the author intended.
Anyway I have a patch to add the effective test but have been away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118451
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase needs early-break support but lacks effective target and
add-option directives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118405
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31c3c1a83fd885b4687c9f6f7acd68af76d758d3
commit r15-6888-g31c3c1a83fd885b4687c9f6f7acd68af76d758d3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117342
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116140
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at os dot
amperecomputing.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95834
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118468
Bug ID: 118468
Summary: vectorizer: extra phi blocks vectorization of if
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117186
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117186
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118467
Bug ID: 118467
Summary: Missed pointer overflow optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118466
Bug ID: 118466
Summary: Not removing bounds checking enough to vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60147&action=edit
Slightly further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Definitely looking more and more vect early exit related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #3 from Ted Rodgers ---
Reduced:
struct a {
int begin;
int end;
};
using b = a[];
struct {
b d;
a &c(long e) { return d[e]; }
} l;
void f(char *, int, int, int) __attribute__((__noreturn__));
struct g {
int operator!=(g e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118456
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60141|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118112
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 60145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60145&action=edit
Work-in-progress on C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116871
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbc7900ce7e2c3d906286674f80789f057e86c0a
commit r15-6886-gbbc7900ce7e2c3d906286674f80789f057e86c0a
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118445
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7b7fe16579ac13d7fd48e7f9a6082778a0a99f7
commit r15-6885-gf7b7fe16579ac13d7fd48e7f9a6082778a0a99f7
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118377
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Soumya AR from comment #2)
> > > Related: Using the C division operator with svfloat ICEs with g++ b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 118445, which changed state.
Bug 118445 Summary: VEC_DUPLICATE_EXPR not handled by
potential_constant_expression_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118445
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118112
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch (r15-6838-ga236f70617213343f3075ee43e8d9f5882dca400) implements
this for the C frontend for GCC 15. It seem like we'd need to add a new flag
to support a special-casing things for the C23 c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116030
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118449
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116030
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f12bb6c26b86c616e4de8c542804cb5b5c9ebdc6
commit r15-6883-gf12bb6c26b86c616e4de8c542804cb5b5c9ebdc6
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Mon J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118450
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118405
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118465
Bug ID: 118465
Summary: un-needed aligning the stack in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118429
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118350
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Summary|gcc-15.0.0_pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118407
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118328
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #7)
> The files are too big to upload here, so I've uploaded them to
> https://github.com/Fidget-Spinner/debugging-dump. They correspond to the
> main interpreter loop of C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117682
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117682
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b815107f403c526b7e201ca00494f06d1c20768
commit r15-6881-g7b815107f403c526b7e201ca00494f06d1c20768
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Mon Jan 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
--- Comment #1 from Ted Rodgers ---
Created attachment 60143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60143&action=edit
gzipped memory_descriptor_ref.cpp.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118464
Bug ID: 118464
Summary: gcc-15.0.0_pre20250112 ICE with opencv-4.10.0 using
-O2/-ftree-loop-vectorize:
memory_descriptor_ref.cpp:94:19: internal compiler
error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118328
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #7)
> Specifically, zoom in on the function _TAIL_CALL_YIELD_VALUE, it produces on
> GCC 15 (note the assembly here might be slightly different than the one in
> .s file, be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118328
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #7)
> The files are too big to upload here, so I've uploaded them to
> https://github.com/Fidget-Spinner/debugging-dump. They correspond to the
> main interpreter loop of CP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118328
--- Comment #7 from Ken Jin ---
The files are too big to upload here, so I've uploaded them to
https://github.com/Fidget-Spinner/debugging-dump. They correspond to the main
interpreter loop of CPython
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/e1988
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118463
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the question comes down to is this invalid even without instantiating
f.
```
struct B{
int y;
};
template
void f()
{
k();
}
```
GCC rejects it even without instantiation while clang, MSVC, E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118328
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #5)
> However, it seems to me that there's still extraneous push and pops for
> function prologue/epilogue that could be removed with preserve_none. GCC's
> regalloc is defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118328
--- Comment #5 from Ken Jin ---
However, it seems to me that there's still extraneous push and pops for
function prologue/epilogue that could be removed with preserve_none. GCC's
regalloc is definitely a lot better than Clang when both don't hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118463
Bug ID: 118463
Summary: requires-clause considered ill-formed but not leading
to clause failure
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116557
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a4bb95a4e68b6f90a16f337b0b4cdb9af957ab1
commit r15-6879-g9a4bb95a4e68b6f90a16f337b0b4cdb9af957ab1
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82433
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60142
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60142&action=edit
Testcase
At -02, the calls to abort should have been removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96515
--- Comment #2 from mauro russo ---
Sorry for not having realized you specified "ill-formed" in your title. I was
here while I was looking for another bug.
Anyway, your ICE is still there in gcc 14.2 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96515
mauro russo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ing.russomauro at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|constexpr lifetime tracking |constexpr lifetime tracking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118456
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 60141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60141&action=edit
candidate patch under testing
This may be too blunt, and the unrelated robustification may be unwelcome at
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118461
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118462 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 89757, which changed state.
Bug 89757 Summary: accepts returning with reference to temporary in constant
expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89757
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118461
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We don't yet handle other ways of
accessing values outside their lifetime (e.g. following explicit
destructor calls).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118461
--- Comment #1 from Richard Smith ---
See also PR118462 -- I'm not sure if these are duplicates or not; this one
requires the variable to be declared `const`. However, GCC does reject this
simplified testcase with a lifetime error:
constexpr in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118462
Bug ID: 118462
Summary: constexpr lifetime tracking mishandles variables whose
scope is reentered
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118461
Bug ID: 118461
Summary: constexpr lifetime tracking allows access to
out-of-lifetime const variables
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b95b3406c1f7ea603495d71f62b21a9d2c8e15b9
commit r12-10899-gb95b3406c1f7ea603495d71f62b21a9d2c8e15b9
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||78873
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116030
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> So, what happened with this PR? I see the patch has been reviewed and small
> nits requested to be changed, but then I don't see it being committed nor
> repost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 101543, which changed state.
Bug 101543 Summary: extra zeroing of empty struct argument/return value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101543
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-13
Target|arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-07-29 00:00:00 |2025-01-13
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> VRP2 can do it because of
> Applying pattern match.pd:5271, gimple-match-7.cc:6107
> Applying pattern match.pd:237, gimple-match-6.cc:10371
> Applying pattern ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wkaras at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #35 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118401
Bert Wesarg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Bert.Wesarg at googlemail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114527
Bug 114527 depends on bug 96972, which changed state.
Bug 96972 Summary: Missed constant propagation for forward declared constexpr
in composite class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96972
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deve...@manuel-voegele.de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95834
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
--- Comment #10 from Stephen Berry ---
I definitely get warnings in GCC12, but from more complex constexpr code than
your simple example.
Example output:
error: inline function ‘constexpr glz::detail::any_t::operator T() const [with
T = double]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Disabing the following part of r15-6508-gbca8b13bd7bc3d fixes the ICE:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
index 7d3a9ed4a24..814a2055eca 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115921
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9ebf249063d2e8f6e8813fc954276766ad3a2fe
commit r15-6877-ga9ebf249063d2e8f6e8813fc954276766ad3a2fe
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Mon Jan 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Stephen Berry from comment #7)
> > I should clarify that GCC doesn't appear to emit this warning after GCC13.
> > So, in this case I was looking for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Stephen Berry from comment #7)
> I should clarify that GCC doesn't appear to emit this warning after GCC13.
> So, in this case I was looking for a solution for older versions of GCC.
> This requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
--- Comment #7 from Stephen Berry ---
I should clarify that GCC doesn't appear to emit this warning after GCC13. So,
in this case I was looking for a solution for older versions of GCC. This
request was written generically, so that the issue cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117832
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118460
Bug ID: 118460
Summary: [14/15 Regression] ICE on armv8.1-m.main with
-mfloat-abi=hard
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118355
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe this, then. Also fixes bug 118047.
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
@@ -1571,7 +1571,7 @@ massage_init_elt (tree type, tree init, int nested, int
flags,
defer this folding as wel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117701
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117701
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a52812a65cc10ef604100162c7c97ad7f4b37214
commit r15-6876-ga52812a65cc10ef604100162c7c97ad7f4b37214
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
--- Comment #6 from Stephen Berry ---
Here is my primary case for disabling the waring:
https://github.com/stephenberry/glaze/blob/main/include/glaze/reflection/to_tuple.hpp
Line 38
This is for the any_t operator T:
template
requir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Stephen Berry from comment #4)
> One particular warning I'm trying to silence right now is: `used but never
> defined`.
>
> I now see that there is an open issue to disable this particular warn
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
