https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
Bug ID: 92880
Summary: Documentation for Built-in Vector-Extensions should
mention C99 Fixed-width ints as base types
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Because the fixed types in C99 are just typedef of normal types. So it really
does not need to describe that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92881
Bug ID: 92881
Summary: [OpenACC] In async context, need to use
'gomp_remove_var_async' instead of 'gomp_remove_var'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92882
Bug ID: 92882
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in
regstat_bb_compute_calls_crossed, at regstat.c:327
since r279124
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92881
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92882
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92866
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92862
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Dec 10 08:36:56 2019
New Revision: 279156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix typos in 2 functions.
2019-12-10 Martin Liska
PR tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92876
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92874
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92873
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92843
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to jules from comment #6)
> Please don't start making changes to the reference-counting code that is
> being replaced by my overhaul patch.
We first need to establish a stable baseline, with test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92872
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
--- Comment #2 from Igor Chorazewicz ---
Hm, from what I thought C++11 (not sure about C++14 but probably also) allows
ctors to be explicitly defaulted for aggregates. See C++11 [dcl.init.aggr].
Consider the following code:
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92848
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
Bug ID: 92883
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in compare_values_warnv
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92882
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-linux-gnu |s390x-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47456|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92872
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, started with r276444.
Untested patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
@@ -884,3 +884,3 @@ get_CFI_desc (gfc_symbol *sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424
Will Deacon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||will at kernel dot org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92872
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 10 10:32:12 2019
New Revision: 279160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR 92872 – Fix get_CFI_desc
PR fortran/92872
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92884
Bug ID: 92884
Summary: [SVE] Add support for chained extract-last reductions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92870
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92872
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-ibm-linux |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92870
--- Comment #1 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah I think I need a better effective target check. This test would only pass
for target that have a vector/scalar shift/rotate optab.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #2 from Jona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92885
Bug ID: 92885
Summary: ICE (segfault) with allocatable coarrays
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92886
Bug ID: 92886
Summary: Inappropriate comment for std::ios_base::trunc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89311
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4)
> Workaround: use release checking.
Stupid question: How do I do that? Is there a switch that can be passed to the
configure script?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4)
> > Workaround: use release checking.
>
> Stupid question: How do I do that? Is there a switch that can b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4)
> > > Workaround: use release checking.
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92822
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92835
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92822
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
it seems at least the following neon intrinsics are affected:
float32x2_t vmulx_laneq_f32 (float32x2_t, float32x4_t, const int);
float32x2_t vmul_laneq_f32 (float32x2_t, float32x4_t, const int);
floa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the
template
struct A {
A() = default;
A(const A &) = default;
A(A &&) = default;
T arr[N];
};
int main()
{
if (!__is_aggregate (A))
__builtin_abort ();
}
testcase reduced from #c0 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
--enable-checking=release
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Tue Dec 10 12:54:21 2019
New Revision: 279166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Fix PR91790 by considering different first_stmt_info for realign
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
--- Comment #5 from Igor Chorazewicz ---
Ok, but P1816R0 talks about argument deduction - in my example I specify all
template arguments for A, so should this fail?
Moreover, for g++ 10 and g++ 9.2 even the following, non-template code fails
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> @John: Can you please attach a pre-processed source file (-E option). I
> should be able to reproduce that then with a cross compiler.
Is the output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#c5 is rejected with -std=c++2a starting with r263115 aka
http://wg21.link/p1008r1
So, I believe it is correct to reject this in C++20, but I think neither of
those papers have been a DR and so shouldn't affe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92885
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47459&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887
Bug ID: 92887
Summary: [F2008] Passing nullified/disassociated pointer or
unalloc allocatable to OPTIONAL + VALUE dummy fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 91790, which changed state.
Bug 91790 Summary: ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 2 follows
the use)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92870
--- Comment #2 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So I am sure how to get a list of targets that would support a particular
optab. I guess I can introduce a new effective target check with only the
targets that I know pass? Would that be ok?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92882
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> The question is if we just have some exception that for new labels etc. we
> don't grow the tables, while for insns we always do. If yes, the patch is a
> re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86037
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, RHEL5 (admittedly in extended lifecycle support only now) and RHEL6 use
old VTE though, dunno about the other long term support distros. Dunno what
are the probabilities users will use new GCC on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92843
--- Comment #8 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #7)
> We first need to establish a stable baseline, with test cases, and then (or,
> as part of that) merge the several independent pieces of the big "OpenA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92843
--- Comment #9 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW, I wrote this at the time wrt. the refcounting changes (some parts refer
to a previous iteration of the manual deep copy patches)...
Writing a couple of new attach/detach tests, I realised tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92560
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92888
Bug ID: 92888
Summary: [OpenACC] Failure to resolve back via 'acc_hostptr' an
'acc_deviceptr' retrieved for a '#pragma acc declare'd
variable
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92888
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 47460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47460&action=edit
'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/pr92888-1.c'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess this example should be compiled:
A new-expression that creates an object of type T initializes that object as
follows:
...
-- Otherwise, the new-initializer is interpreted according to the
initializa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92745
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to jules from comment #6)
> This patch fixes the acc_map_data-device_already-3.c problem, which I guess
> has probably been broken forever. [...]
..., hence not a priority to get that fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92889
Bug ID: 92889
Summary: GCC-8 considers the _mm_gf2p8affine_epi64_epi8
intrinsic to be symmetric
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47462&action=edit
gcc10-pr92723.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #28 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #27)
> With
>
> -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DPERL_CORE -O3 -save-temps=obj
> -fopt-info-vec-optimized -DSPEC_CPU_LP64 -DSPEC_CPU_LINUX_X64
> -fgnu89-inline
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I've found an ICE:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
int c = 42;
};
void
fn ()
{
auto y = new A(1, 2);
}
$ ./cc1plus -quiet i.C -std=c++2a
In function ‘void fn()’:
cc1plus: internal compiler error: in gimpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Nevermind, I had some local changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #29 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 47463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47463&action=edit
nop plugin
Hi Maxim,
Just to clear my conscience, could you please try the nop trick in your
setup? I nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92793
--- Comment #4 from Frederik Harwath ---
Author: frederik
Date: Tue Dec 10 16:12:58 2019
New Revision: 279169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add tests to verify OpenACC clause locations
Check that the column
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92890
Bug ID: 92890
Summary: Member name lookup
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
After some more thought I think I need to correct myself: I suppose even in a
ctor the this pointer might need to be treated as having escaped and be
accessible to a replacement operator new, but placement new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
Bug ID: 92891
Summary: ice in decompose, at wide-int.h:984
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92889
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92890
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77725
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nknikita at niisi dot ras.ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92886
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59655
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-03-08 00:00:00 |2019-12-10
--- Comment #6 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code:
int a, b;
int *c() __attribute__((alloc_size(1)));
void d() {
char *e = c(1);
while (a) {
if (b <= 0)
continue;
e[b] = 0;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92892
Bug ID: 92892
Summary: [AARCH64] TBL-based permutations can be implemented
more efficiently for 2-element vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Bug ID: 92893
Summary: Unhelpful -Wstringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92886
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92848
--- Comment #4 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3)
> (In reply to jules from comment #2)
> > Again, please don't change this code under the feet of the refcount overhaul
> > patch!
>
> But why? This he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #6 from Boris ---
Ok, so there was a mix-up between patterns with and without multi-nodes
in your untested fix, which Micha found and fixed, see attached patch.
(otherwise it wouldn't even build a whole kernel).
With it, it fixed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #7 from Boris ---
Created attachment 47465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47465&action=edit
Micha's patterns fix
Fix for mix-up between patterns with and without multi-nodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Bug ID: 92894
Summary: "declared using local type 'test01()::X', is used but
never defined" during concept satisfaction
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59655
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comment 6 seems to be a different issue, so I've reported that as PR 92894
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
