https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
Bug ID: 89652
Summary: ICE during constexpr evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89641
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89650
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
There are unreachable blocks which are not allowed for
pre_and_rev_post_order_compute. Somebody forgets to call cfg-cleanup here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89651
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, openmp,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89651
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Mar 11 09:37:41 2019
New Revision: 269570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268789
2019-03-11 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Mar 11 09:38:06 2019
New Revision: 269572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r269492
2019-03-11 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89383
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Mar 11 09:37:52 2019
New Revision: 269571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268981
2019-03-11 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072
Bug 84072 depends on bug 86952, which changed state.
Bug 86952 Summary: Avoid jump table for switch statement with
-mindirect-branch=thunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87571
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed in trunk. I'm adding the testcase and removing the regression
marker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
Bug ID: 89653
Summary: Missing vectorization of loop containing
std::min/std::max and temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
template constexpr auto foo (T &e) { return e.foo (); }
template constexpr auto bar (T &e) { return foo (e); }
template struct A { typedef T a[N]; };
template struct B {
typedef T *b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89650
--- Comment #2 from 刘袋鼠 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> There are unreachable blocks which are not allowed for
> pre_and_rev_post_order_compute. Somebody forgets to call cfg-cleanup here.
Yes, pass_split1 strip off REG_EH_REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87571
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Mar 11 10:30:24 2019
New Revision: 269575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/87571
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, no. It is present even in .original and we somehow fail to elide it (maybe
because of the clobber?!
;; Function void loop1(double*, double, int) (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
{
{
int i =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, OK. So our special pass to deal with std::min taking arguments by
reference
is "confused" enough by
_4 = *_3; // vec[i]
D.17247 = _5;
if (_4 > _5)
goto ; [34.00%]
else
goto ; [66.00%]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45931
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45931&action=edit
untested phiprop patch
Patch making phiprop hoist the load through the PHI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45932
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45932&action=edit
untested DCE patch
Patch cleaning up after PRE via TODO_update_address_taken from (each) DCE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
Bug ID: 89654
Summary: Invalid reload with -march=skylake -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89383
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:18:22 2019
New Revision: 269577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268981
2019-03-11 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:18:08 2019
New Revision: 269576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268789
2019-03-11 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89649
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:31:05 2019
New Revision: 269578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89649
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89618
Bug 89618 depends on bug 89649, which changed state.
Bug 89649 Summary: [9 Regression] r269458 FAILs g++.dg/pr80481.C,
scan-assembler-not vmovaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89649
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
Bug ID: 89655
Summary: GCC crashes building linux kernel for arm 32-bit
(culprit r269453)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45934
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45934&action=edit
patch I am testing
And this one I am testing, executing update-address-taken from loop_init
(thus one time ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:37:46 2019
New Revision: 269579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/89588
* loop-unroll.c (decide_unro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:40:11 2019
New Revision: 269580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/89588
* loop-unroll.c (decide_unro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Can you provide the GCC ICE backtrace? I suspect it's the same thing Jakub
sees.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89641
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:49:13 2019
New Revision: 269582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89641
* include/std/atomic (atomic::store, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
ICE backtrace:
*** WARNING *** there are active plugins, do not report this as a bug unless
you can reproduce it without enabling any plugins.
Event| Plugins
PLUGIN_ATTRIBUTES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89656
Bug ID: 89656
Summary: [9 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on
aarch64-linux since r269453
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89656
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45935
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45935&action=edit
gcc9-pr89656.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89657
Bug ID: 89657
Summary: ICE when calling lambda returning requires-expression
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89657
--- Comment #1 from Jason Cobb ---
(In reply to Jason Cobb from comment #0)
> In the code:
> auto x = [](){
> return requires() {
> 1;
> };
> }();
>
> When compiling with trunk as of 2019-03-10, GCC fails with an internal
> compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I can seen a similar ice when using -O3 on x86_64. It seems to go wrong
between revisions 269450 and 269500.
I've got a single file that demonstrates the problem.
Reducing now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
a, b, d;
char *c;
e() {
int f = a;
for (;;) {
f = 0;
for (; f < (a > 3 ?: a); f++)
b = c[f] ? c[(f + 2 > a - 1 ? a - 1 : 2) * d] : 0;
}
}
$ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -O3 -w bug509.c
duri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89447
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> I've committed a version of your patch, which I hope will fix all the
> problems.
> Please let me know if not.
I've just bootstrapped with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89643
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89641
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89655
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89656
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45935|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89629
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 11 13:46:05 2019
New Revision: 269584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89629 fix _Hash_bytes for lengths > INT_MAX
PR libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Re-checking today we reject AVX vectorization via the costmodel but do
SSE vectorization. With versioning for alias we could also SLP vectorize this,
keeping the loop body smaller and avoiding an epilogue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
--- Comment #2 from Mathias Stearn ---
Unfortunately the c++ attributes syntax applies to the lambda type rather than
the function, so the warning is correct. The old style __attribute__ syntax
seems to be the only way to annotate the lambda func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89629
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45937&action=edit
gcc9-pr89652.patch
IMHO either we need to do what this patch does, i.e. only remove SAVE_EXPRs
that are in new_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not true, automake is highly customizable, you can e.g. override
COMPILE/LTCOMPILE variables in Makefile.am or something similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89658
Bug ID: 89658
Summary: __BASE_FILE__ is not preserved when using
-fdirectives-only
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Without STV, there are too many moves. -O2 -m32 -mno-stv should generate
something like:
movl4(%esp), %eax
movl8(%esp), %edx
shldl $3, %eax, %edx
shll$3, %eax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89642
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89651
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
t is privatized and the emitted code looks just fine to me.
The standard says for privatization clauses:
For a list item or the subobject of a list item with the ALLOCATABLE attribute:
- if the allocation st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE on this testcase started with my r269078.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #10 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> That is not true, automake is highly customizable, you can e.g. override
> COMPILE/LTCOMPILE variables in Makefile.am or something similar.
The issue is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89659
Bug ID: 89659
Summary: [microblaze] unrecognizable insn at floating point
conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89642
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Lesser ---
Sorry, I forgot the most important part of the bug report: This is C++20. clang
doesn't implement this feature (yet), so it would naturally reject it as is
valid in pre C++20. icc has a bug since it accepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89660
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89660
Bug ID: 89660
Summary: [9 Regression] Rejects-valid error with
-Wredundant-move starting with r269427
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89660
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89460
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 11 16:28:11 2019
New Revision: 269588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89460 Fix Networking TS test failures on HP-UX
Check for av
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89460
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661
Bug ID: 89661
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_61.f90 -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89651
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the other side, the testcase is invalid, because you are summing
uninitialized data. It is like if you did:
program pr89651
integer :: n
real, allocatable :: t(:)
n = 10
allocate (t(n))
print *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 45940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45940&action=edit
Patch to fix resource_adaptor failures due to max_align_t bugs
Could you please try this patch on Soalris an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89662
Bug ID: 89662
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in contains_struct_check, at
tree.h:3545
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89663
Bug ID: 89663
Summary: ICE in expand_builtin_int_roundingfn_2, at
builtins.c:2831
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
Bug ID: 89664
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in free_bb, at
tree-ssa-math-opts.c:522
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89644
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89644
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89662
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89665
Bug ID: 89665
Summary: inconsistent macro expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89662
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89573
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> where the first result is off. The IL looks like
>
> int r = (int) ((long double) log (p) * (long double) inv_log_of_base);
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89663
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89665
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question here is does it match what the C standard says it should be
instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
--- Comment #4 from Mathias Stearn ---
@Jakub, This code doesn't have either mutable or noexcept, so the "wrong place
in the grammer" issue doesn't apply. That part of the fix seems correct and
useful.
While it seems correct to fix what the c++1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89666
Bug ID: 89666
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-39.c scan-ipa-dump-times icf
"Unified;" 2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89666
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 45942
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45942&action=edit
ICF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89666
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Looks like test needs:
/* { dg-require-alias "" } */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89660
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Slightly reduced:
namespace std {
template T &&move(T &&);
}
template struct D {
template D (D x) : k(&x.foo ()) {}
S &foo ();
int *k;
};
D bar ();
struct F {
D baz () {
D f = bar ();
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
