https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119264
Bug ID: 119264
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_mark) in tree_nonzero_bits, at
fold-const.cc:16688
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119263
Bug ID: 119263
Summary: ICE: gimplify_expr (gimplify.cc:20209) triggered by
__builtin_assoc_barrier with volatile struct
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
--- Comment #6 from Kaaden Ruman ---
Created attachment 60735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60735&action=edit
Patch to handle false returned case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like this was fixed between r15-7776-gff38712bcba97f and
r15-7897-ge6e7b477bbdbfb
Most likely
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=f870302515d5fcf7355f0108c3ead0038ff326fd
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119238
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e6967aba1aaa9dfc362ce59b3d9358a6a15603c
commit r15-8017-g4e6967aba1aaa9dfc362ce59b3d9358a6a15603c
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Wed Mar 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90814
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc accept invalid |gcc accept invalid
|co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94061
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2568
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119238
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Defaulted special member functions seem similarly affected. The following
should be valid in C++23 mode after P2448R2:
struct A { A(); };
struct B {
A a;
constexpr B() = default;
};
:5:13: error: expl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
--- Comment #5 from Kaaden Ruman ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> Crossref: That code was added in commit
> r14-6515-g5fdb150cd4bf8f
> OpenMP/OpenACC: Rework clause expansion and nested struct handling
>
> The called func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117645
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Kaaden Ruman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaadenruman at hotmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119261
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119223
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 119262 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119239
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119261
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The support was added with r15-5941-g237fdf51fbfcfa .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119261
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-Options.html#index-mcpu-2
Is the documentation for gcc trunk and not the version you are using.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #12 from Robert Dubner ---
"Obvious," the man says.
Do you know the story about the professor doing a proof at the blackboard? He
finishes a step, then says, "It's obvious from step three that..."
A student interrupts. "Professor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119262
--- Comment #1 from Kael Franco ---
Created attachment 60733
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60733&action=edit
Generated assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119261
--- Comment #1 from halfsweet at halfsweet dot cn ---
This is my gcc version information
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=arm-none-eabi-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/Applications/ArmGNUToolchain/14.2.rel1/arm-none-eabi/bin/../libexec/gcc/arm-none-ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119262
Bug ID: 119262
Summary: Missed vectorize loop within bitshift when using one
bool rather than two
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119261
Bug ID: 119261
Summary: The mcpu parameter does not accept the star-mc1++cdecp
expansion when using arm-none-eabi.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119233
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119256
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
BTW, should the source range be:
hello.cob:2:8: error: syntax error, unexpected NAME, expecting FUNCTION or
PROGRAM-ID
2 |porgram-id. hello.
|^~
rather than:
hello.cob:2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119256
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117262
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117262
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8015a72ae496401e05942f4d33c94aa45174f841
commit r15-8016-g8015a72ae496401e05942f4d33c94aa45174f841
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119260
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119260
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most casued by r0-108016-gdaade2060caf31 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119260
Bug ID: 119260
Summary: reinterpret_cast function pointer to integer and
applying and incorrectly calculated
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pzheng at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>
> does that for C.
I built mainline with these changes, and the resulting compiler builds Gambit
without complaint or error.
I'm now running ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119150
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebf6e6241f5658a3cae462b1314f4a8f2bc71760
commit r15-8014-gebf6e6241f5658a3cae462b1314f4a8f2bc71760
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am suspecting GCC doing the correct thing.
In my last reduced testcase, move intermidiate below not_equatable and change
the type of the field t to not_equatable and see that all 3 now reject the
code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #6 from Anders Wind ---
To give an example as to why it would be beneficial to not eagerly fail in this
case:
We have a template type which, just like my example, has operator==()=default
(as well as other functionality). This enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119258
Bug ID: 119258
Summary: All uses of relative timeouts should correctly handle
overflow in duration conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60731
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60731&action=edit
Slightly more reduced, move the operator== to be a member function of
intermidiate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118799
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60730
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60730&action=edit
reduced testcase (no using std::vector)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes clang (with both libstdc++ and libc++) and MSVC compile the example
successfully.
I suppose since the defaulted operator== isn't actually being used, it
shouldn't instantiate anything.
That said, I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 118799, which changed state.
Bug 118799 Summary: [15 Regression] [modules] error on typedefs in anonymous
namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118799
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118799
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2eb3d7454ee578335b7719aadfb9e37a8456f1f1
commit r15-8013-g2eb3d7454ee578335b7719aadfb9e37a8456f1f1
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119154
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cd99e41ef687fd62d6908f4807de277c7dc9803
commit r15-8012-g4cd99e41ef687fd62d6908f4807de277c7dc9803
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
operator== for std::vector is not constrained, so this is the expected
behaviour.
If you default your operator== then it will try to use equality for
std::vector, which isn't constrained so is instantiate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119259
Bug ID: 119259
Summary: compilation error: *constexpr* operator==(const T&)
const = default` forces compilation of std::vector's operator== function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pzheng at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119234
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like openblass has been having issues with power8 for years now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119106
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=117512
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117512
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a27b24c9f4ee7fc12d077ea111200223e4a95c7d
commit r14-11406-ga27b24c9f4ee7fc12d077ea111200223e4a95c7d
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117512
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3dd7b598065ea0280fc65ce656c575c5142fa4fc
commit r15-8011-g3dd7b598065ea0280fc65ce656c575c5142fa4fc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There are many passes which can duplicate asm stmts, e.g. loop unrolling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The obvious way to check for -O0 is if (!optimize)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #9 from Robert Dubner ---
Having said all that, I finally got around to confirming the behavior, which I
did.
After noting that the problem doesn't manifest with "-O0 -ftracer", and noting
further that there is no way obvious to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-12
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116110
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110827
--- Comment #14 from Michael Duggan ---
So, I applied the following patch instead, with identical results. Pro:
doesn't change the artificiality status of the function. Con: more complex
code.
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119250
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
Something like this untested patch would likely also fix the test case:
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc
index e450c9a57f0..e1f78431210 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc
+++ b/gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119250
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
there seems to be a fundamental inconsistency here;
* libiberty is configured (and determines the availability of the POSIX
basename). If that is not found, then it provides and publishes the fall-back
(but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119218
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 60727
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60727&action=edit
Patch under test
Please could you let me know if this works for Solaris too.
(note that this does not fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It would work the same as
volatile int v;
static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) int foo (int x)
{
++v;
++v;
++v;
return x;
}
int
main ()
{
int x;
x = foo (1);
x += foo (2);
x += foo (3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117128
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] GCC trunk |[14/15 regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #7 from Robert Dubner ---
Well, I did ask for suggestions. I suppose it's not surprising I don't really
understand them. Yet.
I should explain, a little further, the underlying problems.
This, for example, is a modified sample fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115316
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110584
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Target Milestone|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110584
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90e53ecdbfcc482ad3d0090658427de6d44a5d49
commit r15-8009-g90e53ecdbfcc482ad3d0090658427de6d44a5d49
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119251
--- Comment #10 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> In that case the warning should be also restricted to the case when ({ comes
> from macro expansion and the compound literal from macro argument (not sure
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117931
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117931
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ee6c2619b256878d43800a16f7b98b3ddf59e52
commit r15-8008-g9ee6c2619b256878d43800a16f7b98b3ddf59e52
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119257
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/compiler-explorer/cobol-builder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119257
Bug ID: 119257
Summary: Version of GCC COBOL on Compiler Explorer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #20 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Kang-Che Sung from comment #19)
> I personally don't like when there is an "oligopoly" on the compilers (C and
> C++ should have a less centralized ecosystem than Java or Python), but this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119251
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> GCC already has Wdangling-pointer which is done at optimization time too so
> I suspect it should catch most of these. Though it should be improved for
> handlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119251
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In that case the warning should be also restricted to the case when ({ comes
from macro expansion and the compound literal from macro argument (not sure if
the last one can be differentiated from locations).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119256
Bug ID: 119256
Summary: Capture source ranges for tokens in gcobol
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/6
77314.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||104077
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119255
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119255
Bug ID: 119255
Summary: [15 Regression] Seg fault after errors
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119251
--- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #5)
> Maybe a more targeted warning would make sense, e.g. taking the address of a
> compound literal inside ({ }). Maybe even checking whether it escapes?
> And/or onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119254
Bug ID: 119254
Summary: ICE on unterminated cobol string due to use of
cbl_internal_error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/c/c-parser.cc.jj2025-03-11 22:45:16.638352045 +0100
+++ gcc/c/c-parser.cc 2025-03-12 19:24:45.614217984 +0100
@@ -1820,6 +1820,7 @@ static void c_parser_objc_at_dynamic_dec
static bool c_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119225
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
7.1.1 is very recent though, so I don't think we can require it, only recommend
it. The versions with the error are not very "old".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #19 from Kang-Che Sung ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #17)
>
> There are less compilers than programs that use it, so there will be less
> points of failure if this is implemented in the compiler instead of in each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 119134, which changed state.
Bug 119134 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE segfault on capturing lambda in fold
expression in requires clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119134
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119134
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12 Regression] ICE
|
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
