https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Apr 24 07:27:42 2019
New Revision: 270532
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-24 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/87127
* resolve.c (che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90219
Bug ID: 90219
Summary: Wrong source location for "cannot convert to a pointer
type" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90219
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90219
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Timm Bäder from comment #0)
> Using gcc 8.3.1 and the following sample code:
>
> static int use_float(float *f) {
> return (int)*f;
> }
>
> // Type your code here, or load an example.
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90211
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 24 08:13:29 2019
New Revision: 270533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270533&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90211
* tree-parloops.c (try_create_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90208
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 24 08:14:50 2019
New Revision: 270534
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270534&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90208
* tree-cfg.c (remove_bb): Move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #80 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 24 08:16:07 2019
New Revision: 270535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270535&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89093
* raise-gcc.c (TARGET_ATTRIBUTE): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90208
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90211
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE: tree |[8 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #81 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for Ada as well, only Go left to do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
--- Comment #5 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ---
The main reason for the ICE is this bit of code here.
GCC-8 and earlier have this bit of code in the expansion for copysignsf3
..
rtx op2 = lowpart_subreg (V2SFmode, operands[2], SFm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90167
--- Comment #4 from Laszlo Ersek (RH) ---
So one way to define the behavior for the original example (from the gcc docs)
would be:
int f(void) {
double d = 3.0;
union a_union u = *(union a_union *)&d;
return u.i;
}
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90187
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 24 09:27:14 2019
New Revision: 270537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270537&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90187
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_sse_fp_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90220
Bug ID: 90220
Summary: std::any_cast misbehaves for function and array types
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90220
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90221
Bug ID: 90221
Summary: Resource leak in object
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90222
Bug ID: 90222
Summary: Speculative execution data leak
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90220
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Apr 24 09:46:07 2019
New Revision: 270538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270538&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90220 Fix std::any_cast for function pointers
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90223
Bug ID: 90223
Summary: Speculative execution data leak
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90224
Bug ID: 90224
Summary: Resource leak..
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90220
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The first example compiles OK on trunk now, the second isn't fixed yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90225
Bug ID: 90225
Summary: Resource leak..
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90226
Bug ID: 90226
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7994
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90224
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90222
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90225
--- Comment #2 from Venkatesh Prabhu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is the same nonsense as PR 90224, please stop.
Sorry for the trouble. Thanks a lot for quicker response.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90223
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I already said GCC 6.x is not supported in PR 88673
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90222
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I already said GCC 6.x is not supported in PR 88673
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com from comment #5)
> For the release branches, I think backporting your patch (and any followups
> , do you remember any ?) should be fine and we should just do it .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90215
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Romeo ---
Changing the lambda to the following
std::apply([&xs...](auto&... ys)
{
(xs.f([&ys...](auto y)
{
ys = y;
}), ...);
}, t);
produces a different ICE:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #18 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #14)
> Yeah, the patch I committed fixed two separate instances of
> undefined overflow, but I think there are a lot more left.
Excellent results so far, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90146
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Note that libffi has a different upstream (but we've not updated since quite
some time)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
IMNSHO the IL checker "errors" should continue to use GCC terms since they
check the GIMPLE intermediate language. They also shouldn't necessarily be
translated (though they may end up user-facing if they t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90170
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #19 from David Binderman ---
For ./c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-2.c
../../trunk/gcc/poly-int.h:1107:5: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 8 *
-9223372036854775796 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
#0 0x2ddd587 in poly_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90130
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
> I think it should be done in r270485.
Indeed. It works fine on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11
with gas. I do get BUS errors in
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85608
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Still going wrong in revision 270500. Here is a stack backtrace:
../../trunk/gcc/cse.c:2215:34: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 1 -
-9223
372036854775807 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90201
--- Comment #2 from Dima Pro ---
without -Werror=useless-cast no warning for this code at all.(In reply to
Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> N.B. This is a warning, not an error. Reporting that you get an error
> because you turned it into an er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90079
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
> It ended up being a little more work, as the proposed patch had a bug in it.
No wonder given that I just started with D ;-)
> But it's now done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90227
Bug ID: 90227
Summary: [9 Regression] trunk rejects polymake since r269965
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90227
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88239
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Still going wrong at revision 270500. Here is a stack backtrace:
../../trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:468:14: runtime error: signed integer
o
verflow: 7818038963515661296 * 4 cannot be represented in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
> Created attachment 46216
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46216&action=edit
> Patch for the remaining problems.
>
> I am r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
I have my suspicions that the following code will throw an unaligned access
error as well.
shared int var;
void main() {
synchronized { var = 1; }
}
As synchronized statements are lowered t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90201
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You get a warning with -Wuseless-cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90220
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch for the second bit posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00927.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90201
--- Comment #4 from Dima Pro ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> You get a warning with -Wuseless-cast
Yes, sorry. Miss this.
Anyway, no useless cast warning should be for this code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90228
Bug ID: 90228
Summary: [UBSAN]: get_addr_base_and_unit_offset_1
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90229
Bug ID: 90229
Summary: Interaction among -Wl,--as-needed and LTO results in
an undefined symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90229
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
$ cat 1.ii
extern int FLAGS_verbose;
extern "C" void pthread_create();
void a(const char *b...) {
if (FLAGS_verbose) {
__builtin_va_list ap;
__builtin_va_start(ap, b);
}
}
void a() { pthread_creat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90207
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0)
> This could also be implemented by a transformation of
> what -fdump-tree-original produces into a valid C program,
> using data structures from libgfortran.
Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That would be likely NRV optimization in the C++ FE, but then why doesn't the
generic NRV optimization handle it in the middle-end later on?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #20 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
> Most of these are array bounds. I'll find out stack backtraces for
> each of these.
Thanks for the testing. Could you open new PRs for the new backtraces?
These are really independent bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> That would be likely NRV optimization in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not sure we should bother doing anything here. There are various
workarounds possible:
std::filesystem::path p(vla);
std::filesystem::path p({vla, (size_t)i});
std::filesystem::path p = (const char*)vl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(The versions passing i as the length will do the wrong thing here, because the
array actually contains the empty string "", but I'm just showing examples of
valid syntax that work with VLAs).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89728
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90228
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm. We return signed offset because the maximum object size is half of the
address space. So I think the code is OK and just invalid C input will produce
undefined output here. Otherwise we'd need one bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90215
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Romeo ---
Simplified quite a lot, removed `` dependency:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/6uNcCN
struct X
{
template
void f(F f)
{
f(0);
}
};
template
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89728
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #82 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Apr 24 12:45:45 2019
New Revision: 270542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89093
runtime: mark unwind functions general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90228
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90197
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46238&action=edit
gcc9-pr90197-wip.patch
Untested WIP patch (for the C FE so far only, C++ needs something similar
though).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90227
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89952
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Apr 24 13:40:38 2019
New Revision: 270544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: Fix PR89952 incorrect CFI
This patch fixes a cases where incon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89952
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90230
Bug ID: 90230
Summary: newunit in open function is not threadsafe with openmp
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88654
--- Comment #8 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Wed Apr 24 14:17:34 2019
New Revision: 270545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libphobos: Skip curl tests if libcurl is not installed on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88654
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Zaak ---
This is preventing gtk-fortran from compiling on macOS with GCC 8.3, AFAICT.
cd /tmp/gtk-fortran-20190424-36870-ggjnvc/gtk-fortran-19.04.gtk3.24.8/build/src
&& /usr/local/Cellar/cmake/3.14.3/bin/cmake -E cmake_link_script
CMakeFiles/gtk-fortran_shared.dir/link.txt --verbose=1
/u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88496
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
From PR 90202:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 pr90202]$ cat x.ii
struct v {
int val[16];
};
struct v test(struct v a, struct v b) {
struct v res;
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++)
res.val[i] = a.val[i] + b.val[i]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
Bug ID: 90231
Summary: ivopts causes iterator in the loop
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-debug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 46240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46240&action=edit
patch for pr89432
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> Created attachment 46182 [details]
> Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90227
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
icc also accepts #c1 with -std=c++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90220
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:17:43 2019
New Revision: 270547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90220 Fix std::any_cast for array types
Although the std::a
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
