https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86479
Bug ID: 86479
Summary: [9 Regression] [graphite] ICE in gimplify_modify_expr,
at gimplify.c:5756
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86457
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 11 07:08:54 2018
New Revision: 262551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-11 Richard Biener
PR debug/86457
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86457
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
Bug ID: 86480
Summary: [8 Regression] error: parameter packs not expanded
with '...' in a recursive variadic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
Bug ID: 86481
Summary: Memory leak with nested source allocations
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86482
Bug ID: 86482
Summary: arm vector instruction requiring allignment uses non
alligned input
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
As a more long-term solution, I think that having -Werror on as the
default should actually be preferred, at least for those parts of
gcc which are clean at the moment.
If somebody then does something which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
Bug ID: 86483
Summary: alloc_size attribute does not work on functions
returning a struct that contains the pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
--- Comment #1 from Rich Townsend ---
As addenda:
*) I also see the problem on gfortran 8.1
*) It doesn't seem to matter whether bar_t is a subclass of foo_t. This choice
was based on the code I developed the test case for, but removing the
ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86482
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
If you have configured the compiler for the AAPCS ABI then the stack is
required to be 64-bit aligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
--- Comment #1 from gnzlbg ---
The same applies to the malloc attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85967
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85910
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
--- Comment #2 from gnzlbg ---
The same applies to the alloc_align attribute.
It also does not seem possible to specify alloc_align for some flag parameter
that contains a masked alignment. For example:
smallocx_return_t je_smallocx(size_t size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 44381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44381&action=edit
Unreduced test-case
Triggered with:
$ c++ -g1 -std=c++14 -fPIC -shared -flto=9 pr86452.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86484
Bug ID: 86484
Summary: Undefined symbol when using polymorphic intrinsic
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For libstdc++ the default (without --enable-werror or --disable-werror) is to
add $(WERROR_FLAG) to WARN_FLAGS. WERROR_FLAG is empty by default, but contains
-Werror for maintainer mode.
So if you use --e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>
>> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
>> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #8 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>
>> --- Comment #7 from richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86473
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 86474 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
--- Comment #2 from Rob Farmer ---
gfortran -ggdb -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m0.358s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Bug ID: 86485
Summary: [ 7 regression] "anonymous" maybe-uninitialized false
positive with ternary operator
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Thomas Otto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.o...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #30 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Sameera,
If you are working on this , can you please assign this to yourself ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
sameerad at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sameerad at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Possibly related to PR 86485 (just a guess, I haven't investigated).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86486
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86486
Bug ID: 86486
Summary: GCC 8 stack clash protection on AArch64 is incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85854
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
Davin McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davmac at davmac dot org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, robert.j.farmer37 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
>
> --- Comment #2 from Rob Farmer ---
>
> gfortran -ggdb -fno-var-tracking -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
--- Comment #4 from Rob Farmer ---
gfortran -ggdb -O1 -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m2.628s
gfortran -ggdb -O2 -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m4.262s
gfortran -ggdb -O3 -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m21.706s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86479
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
PR84873 was that, also manifesting itself in
fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg
(but not a trapping but tree sharing issue).
Testing a patch.
On 11.07.2018 11:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>>
>>> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
>>> On 10/07/18 10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85967
--- Comment #4 from Ladislav Michl ---
I do not have a copyright assignment in place with the FSF and I'm not even
author of that patch. Adhemerval Zanella did the work (thank you again) and I
added him to CC List. Patch itself needs improving as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #20 from Davin McCall ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #19)
> [...] If the result of offsetof has no provenance even the long form won't
> work.
"no provenance" meaning "empty provenance", and of course this is not actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
Bug ID: 86487
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] insn does not satisfy its
constraints on arm big-endian
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|thopre01 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.1
Version|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
--- Comment #4 from gnzlbg ---
@Jonathan Wakely:
> If you tell the compiler the storage is smaller than 'usize' you're asking it
> to treat accesses past 'size' bytes as undefined behaviour (even though
> actually accesses up to usize are val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
gnzlbg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86488
Bug ID: 86488
Summary: malloc attribute when pointer is returned as part of a
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> I think what you want is some -fcheck=pointer option (I think there is a PR
> about his). That option would initialize pointer with some bogus value, e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> Consider the following snippet:
>
> implicit none
> integer, pointer :: p
> print *,associated(p)
> end
>
> [...]
> Right now the above program simply prints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #15 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #14)
> Author: vmakarov
> Date: Thu May 14 20:40:44 2015
> New Revision: 223202
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223202&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86482
kkr at danfoss dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86443
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 11 13:13:31 2018
New Revision: 262552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86443
* testsuite/libgomp.c++/for-15.C (a): Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67147
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
Shorter reproducer:
template concept bool fn = true;
template int test();
Above sample produces the following output:
:1:28: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:14368
template concept boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume Racicot ---
Yes of course! I only added the `-std=c++17` flag.
Here's a live example: https://godbolt.org/g/p8KLfE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86489
Bug ID: 86489
Summary: ICE in gimple_phi_arg starting with r261682 when
building 531.deepsjeng_r with FDO + LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Bug ID: 86490
Summary: lto1: fatal error: multiple prevailing defs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
rpirrera at aitek dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
Bug ID: 86491
Summary: bogus and unsuppressible warning: 'YYY' has a base
'ZZZ' whose type uses the anonymous namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
Bug ID: 86492
Summary: [8/9 Regression] store-merging wrong-code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias ---
In investigating this problem, I actually modified 6.4.1's gcc/cp/decl2.c
with the following patch to print out which component of the
base struct it thinks uses the anonymous namespace:
BEGIN PATCH:
--- de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> Note that Gold does not exhibit this issue. I think ld.bfd is at fault here.
It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
> We've hit similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86493
Bug ID: 86493
Summary: [concepts] Hard error for "call to non-'constexpr'
function" in a requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #2 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Created attachment 44384
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44384&action=edit
More readable (diff -ur) patch against 6.4.1's cp/decl2.c
Here is a more readable version of the patch
to pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86494
Bug ID: 86494
Summary: Usage in unevaluated context causes compile time
errors because of implicit deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
Please elaborate - does ld.bfd try to extract static archive members when it
already has a common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Related to PR84503.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike ---
This still crashes with gcc 8.1.1 20180531
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86495
Bug ID: 86495
Summary: false no return statement warning in "if constexpr"
branch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44385
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44385&action=edit
gcc9-pr86492.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
>
> Please elaborate - does ld.bfd try to extract stati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The attribute exclusion framework only excludes conflicting attributes if they
aren't applied by their handler. It doesn't know how to undo changes that the
handler makes, like modifying tree nodes in place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 11, 2018 8:12:17 PM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
>
>--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
>The attribute exclusion fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Right. The exclusion logic doesn't depend on no_add_attr; it uses it for the
same purpose as attribute handlers do: to prevent the rest of the framework
from applying them. Maybe the exclusion should be done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86496
Bug ID: 86496
Summary: [9 regression] plugin required to handle lto object
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 11, 2018 8:30:43 PM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
>
>--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
>Right. The exclusion logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86386
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The A128 MEM is introduced during RA, *.ira still has:
(insn 26 24 28 2 (set (mem/c:QI (reg/f:DI 16 argp) [0 MEM[(char *
{ref-all})&m]+0 S1 A32])
(vec_select:QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:TI 88 [ _2 ]) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> When ld sees a common symbol, it will use a non-common definiton
> in a library, .a or .so, to override it.
This is surprising, is it documented somewhere? I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #3 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Of course, these lines of t2.h from Comment #1 :
template < class _C_, _C_ *_C_OBJ_, void (_C_::*_M_)() >
class NT
{ static constexpr _C_ *c_ = _C_OBJ_;
public:
NT()
{ (c_->*_M_)();
could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Okay, let me look into making the change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #4 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Aha! It is simply that the object pointer template parameter cannot
have static (translation unit) linkage here:
namespace NA
{ class C { ... };
static C c_;
/*^^*/
}
If I remove the 's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > When ld sees a common symbol, it will use a non-common definiton
> > in a library, .a or .so, to override it.
>
> This is
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
