https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102528
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> hmm ... I thought that adding the tag "obsolete" should hide it - but maybe
> it has to be done by the OP. I tried to add it and it didn't seem to make
> any di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102528
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Mathias Stearn from comment #8)
> Sorry again about the confusion caused by my typo. I am not able to edit the
> comment to make it clear that the comment#0 should be ignored. If that
> happens ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102528
--- Comment #8 from Mathias Stearn ---
Sorry again about the confusion caused by my typo. I am not able to edit the
comment to make it clear that the comment#0 should be ignored. If that happens
again, would it be better for me to close the tick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102528
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
#include
struct simple {
struct promise_type {
void return_void() {}
std::suspend_never initial_suspend() { return {}; }
std::suspend_never final_suspend() noexcept { return {}; }
