https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
--- Comment #8 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #7)
> IIUC now wrong codegen has all been fixed? so the only thing left should be
> the diagnostic bug?
It seems so yes, the combined testcase in Bug 70796 comment 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #12 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #10)
> > I'm assuming this means a new bug should be opened
> > about the wrong code generation?
>
> Yes plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #10 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #4)
> > Also bug 65866 exists for the warning itself.
>
> I think this is an exact dup.
>
> *** This bug has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89695
--- Comment #5 from Matthijs van Duin ---
So for reference, the Itanium C++ ABI says:
"A type which is trivial for the purposes of the ABI will be passed and
returned according to the rules of the base C ABI, e.g. in registers; often
this has th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102942
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83234
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100801
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
-
