https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Plenty of dups for this in bugzilla - but FE folks never get that idea of using
a loop ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> > https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g
> >
> > I uploaded the file, Unifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some of it changed recently, e.g. when the FEs use ARRAY_RANGE_REFs in the
initializer the gimplifier's gimplify_init_ctor_eval emits a loop.
But in this case I think we need the FE to emit the loop itself.
M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #8 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> > > https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f14848aea70066777faf201c0b6eb3c5520bfab9
commit r11-127-gf14848aea70066777faf201c0b6eb3c5520bfab9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4ace720e004f736f1ee46b374c12f9826aad630
commit r11-128-gb4ace720e004f736f1ee46b374c12f9826aad630
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Bug ID: 94964
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in add_phi_arg, at
tree-phinodes.c:359 since r8-2993-ga7976089dba5e227
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48459&action=edit
patch in testing
Testing the attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94442
--- Comment #4 from xiezhiheng at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So I wonder why
>
> a$vect_s8$0_4 = MEM[(const struct __m256i &)output_5(D) + 32].vect_s8[0];
>
> necessarily emits two RTL insns. It's like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #38 from Niels Möller ---
Just a brief update.
1. Tried adding fprintf warnings to c_gimplify_expr (btw, what's the right way
to display a pretty warning with line numbers etc in later passes?). But it
seems that's too early, I still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89394
Trupti Pardeshi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trupti_pardeshi@persistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-06
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Bug ID: 94965
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE during SLP since
r11-59-g308bc496884706af4b3077171cbac684c7a6f7c6
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Mastellone ---
Created attachment 48460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48460&action=edit
simple test case which reproduces the bug
Here is a simple source code replying the bug. I have attached th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Bug ID: 94966
Summary: [10 regression] internal compiler error: tree check:
expected function_type or method_type, have
integer_type in gimplify_call_expr, at gimplify.c:3433
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
@@ -9319,7 +9364,8 @@ vectorizable_load (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
gimple_stmt_it
erator *gsi,
initialized yet, use first_stmt_info_for_drptr DR by bumping the
distance from first_stmt_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #22 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #21)
> However, -O2 would still show the warning.
I meant -O0 of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94967
Bug ID: 94967
Summary: std::get<0>(tuple const &&) returns wrong type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Bug ID: 94968
Summary: [10 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check:
expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark)
in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks.
I've made a more permanent link here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s9i_l68CR8UGhqPfq0pdgQTH26G7YEFW/view?usp=sharing
I get these numbers for g++ UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp -c -std=c++17 -O2
-fno-che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:380a681518c3b387476be1064097f24b0847726d
commit r11-131-g380a681518c3b387476be1064097f24b0847726d
Author: Richard Biener
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Erich Keane from comment #3)
> As you know, "extern template" is a hint to the compiler that we don't need
> to emit the template as a way to save on compile time.
>
> Both GCC and clang will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Bug ID: 94969
Summary: Invalid loop distribution
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
You are right, the documentation is not complete.
Btw. are you parsing a .gcda or .gcna format for some reason?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The problem arises from dr_analyze_innermost not being able to analyze the
bitfield access. However, the returned error is ignored in
find_data_references_in_stmt and execution continues with bogus values i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #10 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Thanks.
> I've made a more permanent link here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s9i_l68CR8UGhqPfq0pdgQTH26G7YEFW/
> view?usp=sharing
>
> I get these numbers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7b76d574b19190da190a60c065f347f40bab59e
commit r11-132-ga7b76d574b19190da190a60c065f347f40bab59e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 48462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48462&action=edit
Experimental patch
With this patch the returned error is propagated. Unfortunately this prevents
some vectori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94967
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
>
> I will try to see if assigning more CPU cores to VirtualBox image I am using
> locally can improve the situation. I am not sure how CPU cache is handled in
> such a setting, but there may be some improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94730
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 94966 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 48463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48463&action=edit
argument discards qualifiers
Another example "argument discards qualifiers"
7;this' argument discards
qualifiers [-fpermissive]
6 | vec.push_back("");
| ^
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20200506/include/c++/11.0.0/vector:67,
from :2:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20200506/include/c++/11.0.0/bits/stl_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
Bug ID: 94970
Summary: d: internal compiler error: in verify_gimple_stmt, at
tree-cfg.c:4959
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So I think the issue is not dependence testing but loop distribution accepting
a
zero dependence distance as OK. Of course dependence analysis is quite useless
here since the accesses are to the same locati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Before Richards change we likely gave up on the mismatch in access function
dimensionality for f[b] vs. f[b].e but now we compute a dependence distance
of zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Message:
>
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/parallel/multiway_merge.h:121:40: style:
> Parameter '__bi2' can be declared with const [constParameter]
> trunk/libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94971
Bug ID: 94971
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Parallel Mode cannot be used in
C++20
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94971
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:371905d12259c180efb9b1f1b5716e969feb60f9
commit r11-138-g371905d12259c180efb9b1f1b5716e969feb60f9
Author: Richard Biener
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48464
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48464&action=edit
gcc11-pr94968.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> This is 400% wrong. It doesn't even address what cppcheck is complaining
> about, and cppcheck is drunk anyway.
Thanks for your explanation.
I am a bit con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
The statement it is balking on is GIMPLE_WITH_CLEANUP_EXPR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89394
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Trupti Pardeshi from comment #9)
> May I know, in which version of binutils this fix is available?
2.35. Which should be available in August, all being well.
Cheers
Nick
PS. The fix is alr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48465&action=edit
Partially reduced test-case
Cannot reduce much..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6fc00b41e764219e2c88d8892d7c701c0d292a17
commit r11-139-g6fc00b41e764219e2c88d8892d7c701c0d292a17
Author: Richard Biener
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|10.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 regression] ICE |[8/9/10 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94865
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Missing match.pd patterns also include a no-op comb of insertion of an
extracted element at the same position
(simplify
(bit_insert @0 (BIT_FIELD_REF @0 @size @pos) @pos)
(if (size matches)
@0)
in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Because RegexMatch needs destruction, a temporary is created that requires
scope destruction. The temporary is wrapped in a TARGET_EXPR, and dtor call
set in TARGET_EXPR_CLEANUP.
TARGET_EXPR
A clean-up p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #6 from Erich Keane ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Erich Keane from comment #3)
> > As you know, "extern template" is a hint to the compiler that we don't need
> > to emit the template as a way to sav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
Somewhat simplified reduction of test that doesn't depend on operator
overloading.
struct RegexMatch
{
string index() { return null; }
~this() { }
}
auto m() { return RegexMatch(); }
void initCommands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #2 from Myron Walker ---
I am parsinv both gcno and gcda files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> Somewhat simplified reduction of test that doesn't depend on operator
> overloading.
>
> struct RegexMatch
> {
> string index() { return null; }
> ~this() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrfsousa at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #2)
> I am parsinv both gcno and gcda files.
These files are not intended to be parsed :/
Can you please describe your use-case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48467&action=edit
gcc11-pr94913.patch
Untested fix for that part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #4 from Myron Walker ---
A python tool that can do distributed code coverage analysis. Gcda files from
cluster nodes from a web interface, gcno from a web interface or file share in
a build archive, and source directly from github.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94972
Bug ID: 94972
Summary: Function multi-versioning binary may crash dynamic
linker
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #4)
> A python tool that can do distributed code coverage analysis. Gcda files
> from cluster nodes from a web interface, gcno from a web interface or file
> share in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #44 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks, I am happy we now have real-world use of symver attribute. I have WIP
patch for better control over the symbol visibility, but I have run into
problems with gas limitations which was fixed by HJ about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #6 from Myron Walker ---
I use the gcno file to build a the graph, pull counters from the gcda files and
then solve the graph for the missing counts. I am merging the data from
multiple gcda sources. Multiple nodes running the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #6)
> I use the gcno file to build a the graph, pull counters from the gcda files
> and then solve the graph for the missing counts.
That's what gcov does itself.
> I a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > Those parameter can NOT be const, because *__b1 and *__b2 will not
> > compile if they're const, because op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Or even better: you can merge various .gcda files with:
gcov-tool merge ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Gcov-tool-Intro.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or in other words, of course whether a parameter can be const is separate from
whether a member function can be const. But that doesn't mean that changing a
parameter from non-const to const can't have any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #9 from Myron Walker ---
How you I process data files from multiple sources and multiple runs with gcov.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #9)
> How you I process data files from multiple sources and multiple runs with
> gcov.
$ man gcov-tool
$ gcov-tool merge [merge-options] directory1 directory2
So you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94967
--- Comment #2 from Rene Rahn ---
Oh, thanks for clarifying this.
Best regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
--- Comment #2 from Olaf Krzikalla ---
Created attachment 48469
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48469&action=edit
Test case code triggering the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94972
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-06
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94877
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #11 from Myron Walker ---
Ok. I'll look into it
On Wed, May 6, 2020, 7:25 AM marxin at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94973
Bug ID: 94973
Summary: compile error when trying to use pointer-to-member
function as invokable projection to ranges::find()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
