https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88008
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Mar 18 07:28:42 2019
New Revision: 269750
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269750&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-17 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88008
* gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88008
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Mon Mar 18 07:51:06 2019
New Revision: 269751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269751&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89676
* sel-sched.c (compute_av_set_at_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89737
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 86979, which changed state.
Bug 86979 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2348 with -m32 on darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above commit fixed PR86979 instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89751
Bug ID: 89751
Summary: [PDT] ICE: Segmentation fault (in resolve_component)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 18 08:31:41 2019
New Revision: 269752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/86979
* gcc.dg/pr86979.c: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89747
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
The problem seems to occur from this compile line:
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/gfortran -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results.269700.valgrind/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89747
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 45984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45984&action=edit
f90 source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
Bug ID: 89752
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3723
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89748
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 18 09:16:56 2019
New Revision: 269753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-18 Richard Biener
PR target/87561
* config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 18 09:17:43 2019
New Revision: 269754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-18 Richard Biener
PR target/87561
* config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89753
Bug ID: 89753
Summary: ICE in unroll_loop_constant_iterations, at
loop-unroll.c:498
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Other testcase:
using u64 = unsigned long long;
struct u128 {u64 a, b;};
inline u64 load8(void* ptr) {
u64 out;
__builtin_memcpy(&out, ptr, 8);
return out;
}
u128 load(char* basep, u64 n) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redbeard0531 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89744
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85014
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Mar 18 09:38:27 2019
New Revision: 269759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-03-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/85014
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85014
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] internal |[7/8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89749
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> simplify_vector_constructor is supposed to handle this, but doesn't because
> it is scared by the mix between a vector of short and a vector of long long.
> This c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 87561, which changed state.
Bug 87561 Summary: [9 Regression] 416.gamess is slower by ~10% starting from
r264866 with -Ofast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
The new ICE in Comment #6 is not fixed by Jason's patch, thus we can't close
this one, unless we file a separate bug for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89754
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947, 87561
--- Comment #1 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89754
Bug ID: 89754
Summary: Vectorizer cost model check should look at evolution
of niter in outer loop(s)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89755
Bug ID: 89755
Summary: Inefficient runtime alias check
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is the instantiation_dependent_r hunk in pt.c that breaks this:
@@ -25361,7 +25486,10 @@
return NULL_TREE;
case TEMPLATE_PARM_INDEX:
- return *tp;
+ if (dependent_type_p (TREE_TYPE (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89753
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89627
--- Comment #4 from aburgess at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: aburgess
Date: Mon Mar 18 10:42:53 2019
New Revision: 269760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/riscv: Correctly ignore empty C++ structs when flatten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87273
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
In this PR we're pipelining a loop with a conditional that has lots of code on
the left arm and just a few blocks on the right arm. In this situation it is
natural for the right scheduling fence to end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is this fixed or is there any plan to back port r269658?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89751
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > This testcase was reduced from the same original file as the one filed in
> > PR89601.
>
> This has been fixed on trunk at revision r269658.
I see. W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This might actually be invalid testcase with no diagnostics required though.
Certainly no instantiations of X can be accepted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 18 11:28:01 2019
New Revision: 269761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add forgotten requeing in propagate_subaccesses_across_link
2019-03-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 18 11:31:52 2019
New Revision: 269762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add forgotten requeing in propagate_subaccesses_across_link
2019-03-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
Full instruction:
(insn 531 530 532 19 (parallel [
(set (mem/c:BLK (reg:DI 3842) [29 A0+0 S2 A64])
(asm_operands:BLK ("") ("=rm") 0 [
(mem/c:BLK (reg:DI 3846) [29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, it is just a code quality issue.
I have the attached patch, and it works; it needs to be updated so that the
alignment check is only done for CPUs where it is needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89756
Bug ID: 89756
Summary: FAIL: gdc.dg/asm4.d -O0 (internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89757
Bug ID: 89757
Summary: accepts returning with reference to temporary in
constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
Small example which generates the same ICE on every GCC version:
typedef struct { int x, y, z; } X;
void f(void)
{
X A0, A1;
__asm__ ("" : [a0] "+rm" (A0),[a1] "+rm" (A1));
}
So it's completely invalid inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89758
Bug ID: 89758
Summary: queue and priority queue show invalid size when empty
container is poped. Further pushes lead to
inconsistent values
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89754
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89758
--- Comment #1 from anshul aggarwal
---
uncomfirmed : the dataStructure might try to "free" unowned memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89759
Bug ID: 89759
Summary: pop_back on empty vector gives wrong size
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #25 from Andrey Drobyshev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #23)
> (In reply to Andrey Drobyshev from comment #22)
> > Created attachment 45851 [details]
> > Work-in-progress fix considering relocations
> >
> > I'm a bit stu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #26 from Andrey Drobyshev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Andrey Drobyshev from comment #22)
> > > Created attachment 45851 [details]
> > > Work-in-progre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
>
> --- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
> Small example which generates the same ICE on every
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89736
--- Comment #1 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Segher,
I agree with your analysis. I'm not sure we have easy access to a platform
where I can demonstrate/reproduce the problem. Do you know where I can test
this?
I believe the proper fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is on:
__asm__("" : "a0" "=rm" A0, "a1" "=rm" A1 : "0" A0, "1" A1);
where A0 and A1 are variables with LhsPacket type, which is 2 byte
TYPE_ADDRESSABLE aggregate type.
The r in the constraints looks comple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88945
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 18 13:59:11 2019
New Revision: 269765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-18 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/88945
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #16 from John David Anglin ---
print '(f2.1)',100.00
end
Here is backtrace info:
Breakpoint 2, 0x7afce720 in memcpy () from /usr/lib/libc.2
(gdb) p/x $r26
$6 = 0x7eff0c1d
(gdb) p/x $r25
$8 = 0x7eff0d9a
(gdb) p/x $r24
$5 = 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bisecting now, r21 still works, r215000 ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89759
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It's probably undefined to pop_back () on an empty vector.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #17 from John David Anglin ---
0x7adcb864 :cmpclr,> r21,r3,r0
0x7adcb868 :copy r21,r3
0x7adcb86c :stw r20,-8c(sp)
0x7adcb870 :stw r21,-90(sp)
0x7adcb874 :copy r19,r4
0x7adcb878
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #4 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
My use-case is to use the instantiation of `struct X' to fire the static
assert.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
Bug ID: 89760
Summary: [9 Regression] libstdc++ experimental testsuite
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This needs to be verified by our C++ language lawyers, but if:
"If no valid specialization can be generated for a template definition, and
that template is not instantiated, the template definition is ill-for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #18 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 45989
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45989&action=edit
Patch
This fixes the stack overflow in memcpy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #10 from Wilco ---
It seems that rewriting "+rm" into "=rm" and "0" is not equivalent. Eg.
__asm__ ("" : [a0] "=m" (A0) : "0" (A0));
gives a million warnings "matching constraint does not allow a register", so
"0" appears to imply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89682
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #19 from John David Anglin ---
The patch also fixes test failure on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89758
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Tadeus Prastowo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89759
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89752
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually can't bisect, as gcc 8 I have installed is no longer able to build
r215000 or revisions around it (some error on wide-int.h:
../../gcc/wide-int.h:372:10: error: too many template-parameter-lists
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89736
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I found this on a Power7 (maybe -m32, not sure).
Your patch is eerily like what I did to fix this in testing, but the comment
right below says it does not use -mvsx on purpose?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89761
Bug ID: 89761
Summary: [9.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
'expression', have 'exceptional'
(argument_pack_select)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev ---
Created attachment 45990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45990&action=edit
preprocessed repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89682
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89761
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89682
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 18 15:58:24 2019
New Revision: 269766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269766&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89682 - wrong access error in default argument.
Here we we
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
