https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> - if (sel & (1 << UINTVAL (j)))
> + if (sel & (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << UINTVAL (j)))
>
> change in simplify-rtx.c is preapproved, but it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70507
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70523
Bug ID: 70523
Summary: Inconsistent casting of floats to unsigned short
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70307
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Apr 4 08:11:46 2016
New Revision: 234706
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234706&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70307
* c-fold.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Handle V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70307
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70523
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sorry for typo, I meant PR323.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, given this is a P1, is anyone working on it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70402
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 4 08:46:51 2016
New Revision: 234707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR hsa/70402
PR hsa/70402
* hsa-gen.c (gen_hsa_insns_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68881
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Apr 4 09:26:29 2016
New Revision: 234708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/68881
* cgraph.h (symtab_node::copy_visibility_fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70484
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 4 09:30:16 2016
New Revision: 234709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-04 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/70484
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
--- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Apr 4 09:32:28 2016
New Revision: 234710
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234710&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-04-04 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Apr 4 09:33:54 2016
New Revision: 234711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-04-04 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for regression reports before closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70397
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
Bug ID: 70524
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE when using -frepack-arrays
-Warray-temporaries
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66911
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Apr 4 09:47:47 2016
New Revision: 234712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234712&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-04-04 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38172
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38172&action=edit
gcc6-pr70336.patch
IMNSHO -Wconversion is totally useless warning, and one where if you want to
avoid "false po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66911
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for regressions before closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
xg++ from stage1 should already add -lstdc++. Sth else weird is going on for
you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70516
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 38172 [details]
> gcc6-pr70336.patch
>
> IMNSHO -Wconversion is totally useless warning, and one where if you want to
> avoid "false pos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70378
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> Simpler testcase:
>
> typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
> void foo(char a, uint32_t b)
> {
> b = (uint32_t)((b * 10) + (uint32_t)a);
> }
>
> Somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67538
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Apr 4 10:32:32 2016
New Revision: 234714
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-04-04 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67538
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for regressions before closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
What is the gfc_warning* call that produces the ICE? Backtrace?
It seems gfortran is generating a NULL loc or loc->lb, or it is keeping an
invalid value of loc->nextc or loc->lb->line. This might be du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38173
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38173&action=edit
gcc6-pr70336.patch
Patch to revert (for GENERIC only) the match.pd change that causes this
regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70525
Bug ID: 70525
Summary: generating 'vpandn' without the mode suffix, gnu as
fails to assemble (-mavx512bw)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Created attachment 38173 [details]
> gcc6-pr70336.patch
>
> Patch to revert (for GENERIC only) the match.pd change that causes this
> regression.
Does it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above patch (untested so far) should get rid of the regression, thus we'd
warn exactly where 4.9 warned.
But, consider say:
void
f1 (unsigned char * x, int y, int z)
{
x[z / 8] |= (unsigned char) (0x80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What is the gfc_warning* call that produces the ICE? Backtrace?
For gfortran.dg/dependency_35.f90, the backtrace is
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dependency_35.f90:6:0:
pure functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 38173 [details]
> > gcc6-pr70336.patch
> >
> > Patch to revert (for GENERIC only) the ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64387
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oh no, not again gfc_trans_dummy_array_bias...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Bug ID: 70526
Summary: GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70527
Bug ID: 70527
Summary: Missed fold for "(long int) x * 12 - (long int)(x + 1)
* 12"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
Bug ID: 70528
Summary: [5/6 Regression] bogus error: constructor required
before non-static data member
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70529
Bug ID: 70529
Summary: Unhelpful diagnostic for hex float literals,
inconsistent parsing
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70530
Bug ID: 70530
Summary: You should probably add addressof (a) != addressof (b)
check to std::swap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
A shorter reproducer for the funny part where the error arises:
template
struct I {
};
struct J {
struct K {
int First = 0;
};
I FunctionMDInfo;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70433
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Here -Wconversion will warn for many casesm even in 4.9, eventhough one
> could argue that say in the f4 case nothing is lost during conversion, or
There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems related to PR 58328
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70531
Bug ID: 70531
Summary: Turning optimisation level 2 causes the output program
to go into infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The added diagnostic rejects this, which clang and EDG accept:
extern "C" int printf(const char*, ...);
int main() {
using A = int[1];
printf("%p\n", A{1} );
}
ts.c:4:18: error: taking address of te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Seems related to PR 58328
Hmm, does it makes sense to compute exception specifications even with
-fno-exceptions (LLVM default build flag)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #6)
> Fails at O0 in this case, I cannot type. I still think this is a tail from
> PR62254 and that should just be reopened.
I cannot reproduce this failure. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> -Wstrict-aliasing=2 warns:
>
> markus@x4 tmp % g++ -O2 -Wstrict-aliasing=2 test_fire.cpp
> test_fire.cpp: In instantiation of ‘const T* AlignedStorage2::addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #19 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #17)
> The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
> 70362)
>
> arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv3m -c -o c_compat_x_tst.o
> gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70530
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70527
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to amker from comment #0)
> Seems "(long int) x * 12 - (long int)(x + 1) * 12" is missed in
> generic-simplify.
Interestingly, we manage just fine if 12 is replaced with a variable. The issue
seems t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68881
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r223126. Richi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A way to look at the problem is to compare against the dump info for the
variant without the extra (redundant) dimension.
So, compare dump-info for -DEXTRADIM={0,1} for this source:
...
#if EXTRADI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This changed with r223126.
The *.optimized dump is the same between r223124 and r223126, but already there
we can see that SRA used the TypedOrValueRegister type for the read:
MEM[(struct &)&D.2403] ={v} {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38178
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38178&action=edit
UDIFF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70531
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
In gcc/builtins.c it is probably better to use:
const struct real_format *fmt = FLOAT_MODE_FORMAT (mode);
if (fmt == &ibm_extended_double)
{
// ...
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Created attachment 38179
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38179&action=edit
First stab at a patch
Initial patch done, testsuite additions to follow, will submit once
compile-farm test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> If comment #1 should be accepted, then should this be accepted too?
>
> template
> struct I {
> };
>
> struct J {
> struct K {
> int First = J::N;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The function needs to deal with cases where e.g. DECL_VALUE_EXPR is added to
various VAR_DECLs and the IL needs to be updated accordingtly. It is mostly
used by OpenMP lowering, and that is done not in SSA f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, and it rejects both #c1 and #c5 and the variants with K() = default;
So, unlike PR58328 here both compilers agree, and the disagreement is just
whether it is ok for libstdc++ to use the decltype?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Hochsteger ---
This testcase is just a very striped-down version of the actual code to
reproduce the error, so it may seem useless at some spots, like the missing
initialization.
We already have a workaround by adding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70507
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Thank you for the suggestion.
Storing values via pointers is not C++ 14 specific so the answer to your
question is that having the builtins be treated as constexpr would be useful in
both C++ 11 and C++ 14 mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know how to implement is_default_constructible without using that
decltype, or something similar that will cause the same problem.
If we had a __is_constructible(_Tp, _Args...) builtin we could use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I haven't been talking on what you should be using in your project, but rather
what testcase we want to include in GCC sources. And there the immintrin.h
dependency IMHO is unnecessary etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Hochsteger ---
Oh, now I get it, sorry for the misunderstanding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Here's something strange.
gcc rejects and clang accepts the following test case, but if decltype (A()) is
replaced by decltype (T()) then gcc accepts and clang rejects it.
template
struct H
{
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70457
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 4 15:42:19 2016
New Revision: 234716
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234716&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Jakub Jelinek
P
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
