https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f24dfc76177b3994434c8beb287cde1a9976b5ce
commit r12-7318-gf24dfc76177b3994434c8beb287cde1a9976b5ce
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90d693bdc9d71841f51d68826ffa5bd685d7f0bc
commit r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d71841f51d68826ffa5bd685d7f0bc
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99881
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90d693bdc9d71841f51d68826ffa5bd685d7f0bc
commit r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d71841f51d68826ffa5bd685d7f0bc
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100457
Bug 100457 depends on bug 99881, which changed state.
Bug 99881 Summary: Regression compare -O2 -ftree-vectorize with -O2 on SKX/CLX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99881
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101929
Richard Biener 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=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 101929, which changed state.
Bug 101929 Summary: [12 Regression] r12-7319 regress x264_r by 4% on CLX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101929
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100983
Artur Bać changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104631
Bug ID: 104631
Summary: Visibility of static member s yields duplicate
symbols.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #15 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #14)
> I'd restrict relaxations to loops emitted by the compiler. All other atomic
> operations shouldn't be modified at all, unless the user asks for it. That
> incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104632
Bug ID: 104632
Summary: Missed optimization about backward reads
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104632
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104633
Bug ID: 104633
Summary: [12 Regression] -Winfinite-recursion diagnoses fortify
wrappers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104631
--- Comment #2 from Max S. ---
Ok, thank you for the answer. In the example I can set this for the class but,
in the library it would be problematic. So here the best solution would be to
set the whole library to default.
Since the user should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104632
--- Comment #2 from LIU Hao ---
I don't think it's a duplicate. This only happens when reading through a
pointer by negative offsets. If I change the code to read by non-negative
offsets, GCC is actually very happy about it:
https://gcc.godbolt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104146
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6263b656c8fcfc6d7e1d2af55a88bc0429a4b352
commit r12-7322-g6263b656c8fcfc6d7e1d2af55a88bc0429a4b352
Author: Tom de Vries
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104146
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104612
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e691189ca9c04fdba71ceada1faba62afbc1463
commit r12-7323-g7e691189ca9c04fdba71ceada1faba62afbc1463
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104604
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d44dc131f48254fccc69ec4178fec030e0e2761d
commit r12-7324-gd44dc131f48254fccc69ec4178fec030e0e2761d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104634
Bug ID: 104634
Summary: Explicit template instantiation does not work when
there are multiple partial template specialization
using concepts Денис Шкиря
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104633
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Note the inline function needs __attribute__((gnu_inline)) or -fgnu89-inline to
not compile to an endless recursion, but we then still get the undesired
diagnostic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|[11/12 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102645
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: Can you please add the testcase and close this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104533
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104589
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r11-3026-gfea13fcd0da03535.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104617
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f59f067610f22c3f2ec9b1516e24b85836676ed
commit r12-7325-g2f59f067610f22c3f2ec9b1516e24b85836676ed
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104632
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104390
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
Bug ID: 104635
Summary: for loop optimized into infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104633
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The following is a valid use of extern inline I think
extern int memcmp (const void * p, const void *q, unsigned long size);
extern inline __attribute__((always_inline,gnu_inline))
int memcmp (const void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104393
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #2 from Szüllő Ádám ---
>There's nothing wrong here
how a missing retun statement corrupt an independent code block, with "private"
variable inside it's own scope?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104633
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #4 from Szüllő Ádám ---
i understand that missing return value is undefined behaviour.
my point is, that this should be limited to the act of return (return with
garbage, segfault, stuck in an infinite loop _after_ the for loop)
wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you'd bothered to read the link I've provided (actually all 3 parts of it),
maybe you'd understand. Anyway, bugzilla is for reporting bugs (there is none
on the compiler side), not for teaching users ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You miss all extra errors the expand_call can generate. This is the general
reason why we try to continue instead of stopping after the first error. The
reason is that later errors may be more obvious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104636
Bug ID: 104636
Summary: implicit use of explicit constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104627
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The old warning was more helpful and specific, it would be nice if we could
have that back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
Bug ID: 104637
Summary: ICE: maximum number of LRA assignment passes is
achieved (30) with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96442
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-7324-20220222104313-gd44dc131f48-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220222 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104633
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102768
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104639
Bug ID: 104639
Summary: Useless loop not fully optimized anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104639
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One thing is not threading through loop latches, but in this case once the loop
is optimized into straight line code in thread2 we don't thread that further,
so end up with
if (i_2(D) == 4)
goto ; [97.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100983
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Artur Bać from comment #4)
> trunk at compiler explorer still rejects valid code
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/v4ebhj9Gh, only the message of requirement of
> namespace scope is missing from gcc 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100983
--- Comment #6 from Artur Bać ---
The typename was from my real code by mistake where value_type s template
param.
But in real code withing template I have to use typename and it doesn't work
with trunk too.
https://godbolt.org/z/E6Pavhfza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Submitted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590721.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100983
--- Comment #7 from Artur Bać ---
Do I have to open new bug because of You marked it as fixed while it is not
fixed ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #6 from Szüllő Ádám ---
I'd bothered to read the articles, and there were no new information (nor
relevant to this exact case).
You are right that this is not a bug, becasue the code is invalid, as myself
emphasized too in the descri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104640
Bug ID: 104640
Summary: incomplete unicode support for User-defined literals
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100983
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Artur Bać from comment #7)
> Do I have to open new bug because of You marked it as fixed while it is not
> fixed ?
Yes please, it'd be easier to track that way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It isn't well-defined code though. It's undefined, as you yourself said. It
can't be both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #8 from Szüllő Ádám ---
Yes, the code as a whole is invalid.
But for(int i=0; i<4; i++) is well defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Szüllő Ádám from comment #4)
> i understand that missing return value is undefined behaviour.
> my point is, that this should be limited to the act of return (return with
> garbage, segfault,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104635
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Szüllő Ádám from comment #8)
> Yes, the code as a whole is invalid.
> But for(int i=0; i<4; i++) is well defined.
No, that's not how undefined behaviour works. It isn't bounded or localised
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-02-22 4:15 a.m., mathieu.malaterre at gmail dot com wrote:
> [...]
> libkcapi-1.3.1/apps/kcapi-rng.c:302: undefined reference to
> `kcapi_rng_generate'
> /usr/lib/gcc-cross/hppa-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104641
Bug ID: 104641
Summary: Deduction guide for member template class rejected at
class scope when used with typename dependant type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100983
--- Comment #9 from Artur Bać ---
created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104641
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104642
Bug ID: 104642
Summary: Add __builtin_trap() for missing return at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101636
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52492&action=edit
GIMPLE testcase
So I think that the IL we produce from SLP vectorizing the if-converted loop
body is not gre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99555
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ed77fb3ed1ee0289a0ec9499ef52b99b39421f1
commit r12-7332-g5ed77fb3ed1ee0289a0ec9499ef52b99b39421f1
Author: Tom de Vries
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99555
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104642
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Not sure, people will still see the surprising behavior at -O1+ then and at -O0
we're not exploiting the __builtin_unreachable () in too surprising ways (we'll
just fall thru to the next function or so - he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104641
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104639
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
it's odd that VRP doesn't optimize this though. VRP2 says
Exported global range table:
i_6 : int ~[4, 4]
bool foo (int i)
{
bool _3;
[local count: 118111600]:
if (i_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
> Started between 20200712 and 20200719 :
Sorry, a cut&pasto from pr104623. It started between 20200419 and 20200509.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104639
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ranger itself can't, i_2(D) in the PHI arg is ~[4, 4], and _3 is still [0,
1] aka VARYING.
Yes, phiopt could handle this by seeing a PHI result is only used in an
equality comparison and try to figure ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:884f77b489510e1df9db2889b60c5df6fcda
commit r12-7338-g884f77b489510e1df9db2889b60c5df6fcda
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:884f77b489510e1df9db2889b60c5df6fcda
commit r12-7338-g884f77b489510e1df9db2889b60c5df6fcda
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91224cf625dc90304bb515a0cc602beed48fe3da
commit r12-7339-g91224cf625dc90304bb515a0cc602beed48fe3da
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91224cf625dc90304bb515a0cc602beed48fe3da
commit r12-7339-g91224cf625dc90304bb515a0cc602beed48fe3da
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df0e57c2c032cea0f77f2e68231c035f282b26d6
commit r12-7340-gdf0e57c2c032cea0f77f2e68231c035f282b26d6
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6a4aefce8e47a7d3ba781066a1410ebfa963e59
commit r12-7341-ge6a4aefce8e47a7d3ba781066a1410ebfa963e59
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6a4aefce8e47a7d3ba781066a1410ebfa963e59
commit r12-7341-ge6a4aefce8e47a7d3ba781066a1410ebfa963e59
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:724d6566cd11c676f3bc082a9771784c825affb1
commit r12-7342-g724d6566cd11c676f3bc082a9771784c825affb1
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:724d6566cd11c676f3bc082a9771784c825affb1
commit r12-7342-g724d6566cd11c676f3bc082a9771784c825affb1
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a7c13a0cf2290b60ab36f9ce1027b92838586bd
commit r12-7343-g6a7c13a0cf2290b60ab36f9ce1027b92838586bd
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a7c13a0cf2290b60ab36f9ce1027b92838586bd
commit r12-7343-g6a7c13a0cf2290b60ab36f9ce1027b92838586bd
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6b4ea7ab1aa6c5c07798fa6c6ad15dd1761b5ed
commit r12-7344-gc6b4ea7ab1aa6c5c07798fa6c6ad15dd1761b5ed
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6b4ea7ab1aa6c5c07798fa6c6ad15dd1761b5ed
commit r12-7344-gc6b4ea7ab1aa6c5c07798fa6c6ad15dd1761b5ed
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104641
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
One workaround is to use a helper member function (defined alongside the nested
class template) that performs the CTAD, something like:
#include
template
struct A {
template struct B { B(U); };
templ
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
