https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #182 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #181)
> Just as a heads-up: I am currently performing extensive testing to be able
> to generate anything useful from testsuite results to a u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
Bug ID: 116412
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE on openblas-0.3.28: in
find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.cc:178
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 58954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58954&action=edit
chbev_2stage.f
Also attaching unminimized version of chbev_2stage.f in case cvise furned into
a broken so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #183 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I'm trying with late-combine disabled now:
diff --git a/gcc/config/sh/sh.cc b/gcc/config/sh/sh.cc
index 280588268ae..dca27893536 100644
--- a/gcc/config/sh/sh.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/sh/sh.cc
@@ -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84244
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:661acde60ef4e9ac5a9e48be18770fb3a9aeb9a5
commit r15-3014-g661acde60ef4e9ac5a9e48be18770fb3a9aeb9a5
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #4 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is a C testcase for this:
```
double f(_Complex double a, _Complex double *b, int c)
{
if (c) return __real__ a;
return __real__ *b;
}
``
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84244
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 84244, which changed state.
Bug 84244 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] [Coarray] ICE in
recompute_tree_invariant_for_addr_expr, at tree.c:4535
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84244
What|Remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
Bug ID: 116413
Summary: [LRA] [M68K] ICE: unrecognized insn in
lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.cc:1036
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
(insn 20 17 21 2 (set (reg:SI 43)
(plus:SI (ashift:SI (reg/v:SI 40 [ b ])
(const_int 2 [0x2]))
(reg/v/f:SI 39 [ buffer ])))
"../../gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/m68k/pr644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
This is generated without LRA:
(insn 22 17 9 2 (set (reg:SI 9 %a1)
(plus:SI (plus:SI (mult:SI (reg/v:SI 0 %d0 [orig:40 b ] [40])
(const_int 4 [0x4]))
(reg/v/f:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
Hi,
It's not useful to CC the gcc-bugs list with patches. Please just send
the patch to the gcc-patches list (and any other appropriate lists,
like libstdc++ or fortran, if appropriate). If you want to update the
bugzilla report, you can manually add a comment to it with the URL of
the patch submi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110367
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, Hana. I expect we'll use the same name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116414
Bug ID: 116414
Summary: Missed optimization: Branch elimination and memory
writes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116414
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a dup of this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||madhur4127 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
--- Comment #13 from Detlef Vollmann ---
On 8/18/24 22:42, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The segmentation fault as reported above has been fixed with comment #2. So
> for what reason did you reopen this PR?
Sorry, I don't really know the pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
Bug ID: 116415
Summary: [13 Regression][PPC64LE] atomics wrongly use vector
instructions in DWCAS.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Arsen Arsenovic :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9cbcf8d1de159e6113fafb5dc2feb4a7e467a302
commit r15-3019-g9cbcf8d1de159e6113fafb5dc2feb4a7e467a302
Author: Arsen ArsenoviÄ
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56496
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8871489c5162067c72a9b9ab05fe2179560e9986
commit r15-3020-g8871489c5162067c72a9b9ab05fe2179560e9986
Author: Andre Vehreschild
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46371
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8871489c5162067c72a9b9ab05fe2179560e9986
commit r15-3020-g8871489c5162067c72a9b9ab05fe2179560e9986
Author: Andre Vehreschild
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99837
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 46371, which changed state.
Bug 46371 Summary: [Coarray] [OOP] SELECT TYPE: scalar coarray variable is
rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46371
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56496
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 56496, which changed state.
Bug 56496 Summary: [OOP] [F08] ICE with TYPE(*) coarray and SELECT TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56496
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46371
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99837
Bug 99837 depends on bug 46371, which changed state.
Bug 46371 Summary: [Coarray] [OOP] SELECT TYPE: scalar coarray variable is
rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46371
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
The issue is that LRA canonicalizes MULT to ASHIFT (outside of MEM), but
m68k_decompose_index only recognizes MULT, so that *lea fails to match.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116383
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's valid iff no other thread does any writes that are potentially concurrent,
e.g. if the other threads are only doing atomic_load on that variable.
And that's precisely why the optimization would be va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 58955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58955&action=edit
Reduced C test case
$ avr-gcc pr116389-red.c -S -Os -mmcu=avrtiny
struct T { int val; };
void f_int (int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116383
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116405
--- Comment #5 from Manolis Tsamis ---
The basic block that is if-converted and results in wrong code looks like this:
if (r107 != -1) {
r107 = (not:SI) (r99)
r107 = (ior:SI) (r107) (const_int -2)
}
Then, the if-converted code that emitte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116412
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I will finish this up tomorrow but here is the patch which I will doing
> (note white spaces might be wrong):
> ```
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc b/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116372
--- Comment #7 from Manolis Tsamis ---
This looks to be the same issue with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116405. The transformation:
insn 1:
(insn 12 31 13 3 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 67 [ y_4 ])
(pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The working draft says:
text_encoding::aliases_view models copyable, ranges::view,
ranges::random_access_range,
and ranges::borrowed_range.
It specifically says copyable and not semiregular, which su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
Bug ID: 116416
Summary: Missing optimization: compile time evaluation of
prvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111619
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Note I also said in this commit:
"The LCM iteration has very many other issues ..."
but I don't exactly remember what I stumbled upon. Re-profiling (a release
checking, properly optimized compiler!) wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #20)
> I did an -O2 run after those patches.
>
> Highlights:
>
> tree SSA incremental : 117.74 ( 1%) 0.63 ( 3%) 120.37 (
> 1%) 1049M ( 24%)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corentinjabot at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #3 from corentinjabot at gmail dot com ---
Yes, libstdc++ is correct.
Not sure what one would do with a default constructed alias aliases_view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 58956
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58956&action=edit
Accept ASHIFT like MULT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
With that patch, *lea is used in more places and LRA fails to remove the inner
SUBREG.
../../../gcc/libgcc/libgcov-profiler.c: In function ‘__gcov_interval_profiler’:
../../../gcc/libgcc/libgcov-profiler.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115683
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 109955 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115490
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
Bug 114189 depends on bug 115490, which changed state.
Bug 115490 Summary: i386 fallout from removing vcond{,u,eq} patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115490
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115683
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 115490 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 58957
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58957&action=edit
_gcov_interval_profiler.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #5 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Thanks! I'll submit an LWG issue to add something saying there's an
> unspecified constructor, or just say explicitly that it's not default
> constructible.
Not sure it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #12)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > > Unless the target has a masked load in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
Comment #5 was built _without_ LRA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116417
Bug ID: 116417
Summary: SFINAE on std::is_destructible cannot handle
destructor of scalar type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116413
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's discussed in P1885.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
"Note that this view is not common_range because it can be implemented more
efficiently
without that requirement, and, being copyable, it can be adapted into one."
and
"We found that aliases can be effic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
See the m68k bug - LRA/IRA _never_ use strict = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #184 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #183)
> I'm trying with late-combine disabled now:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/sh/sh.cc b/gcc/config/sh/sh.cc
> index 280588268ae..dca2789353
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #8 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> "Note that this view is not common_range because it can be implemented more
> efficiently
> without that requirement, and, being copyable, it can be adapted into one."
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116338
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is the recurrence
[local count: 10737416]:
x_10 = b[31999];
y_11 = b[31998];
[local count: 1063004408]:
# x_18 = PHI <_1(5), x_10(2)>
# y_19 = PHI
_1 = b[i_20];
..
[local co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116340
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Splitting up looks like a no-brainer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
But postreload still does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> See the m68k bug - LRA/IRA _never_ use strict = 1
You mean PR116236? Its fix says:
> This matters on targets like m68k that support index extension
> and th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116348
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
supportable_widening_operation fails at transform time - that's likely because
vectorizable_reduction "puns" defs to internal_def so the check should
probably instead look like
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116417
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Currently aliases_view is allowed to be a common range, but not required to be.
If we specify that its sentinel type is std::default_sentinel, that would
require it to be a non-common range. Why would we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57005
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#1586
But not exact.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77815
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#1586
Say this is invalid code after all ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112108
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Carlotti :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32afbb604b4958e78428006b10b3ca5e9ccd49f5
commit r15-3023-g32afbb604b4958e78428006b10b3ca5e9ccd49f5
Author: Andrew Carlotti
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112108
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Carlotti :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fceecc511d4918e2b27a0609f8885ec8aba8723d
commit r15-3025-gfceecc511d4918e2b27a0609f8885ec8aba8723d
Author: Andrew Carlotti
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112108
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Carlotti :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e1b617b35631df4dd6089d4044aa19d0c1adea7
commit r15-3024-g4e1b617b35631df4dd6089d4044aa19d0c1adea7
Author: Andrew Carlotti
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #10 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Currently aliases_view is allowed to be a common range, but not required to
> be.
>
> If we specify that its sentinel type is std::default_sentinel, that would
> requi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116417
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for my reduced testcase, EDG rejects it because it is able to compile
`t`:
```
"", line 12: error: a value of type "void" cannot be used to initialize
an entity of type "int"
int tt = f(0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116417
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116409
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Cleaned up testcase from PR116411 :
```
int f (int t, char *a, char *b) {
if (t)
return __builtin_strlen (a);
return __builtin_strlen (b);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116402
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77815
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In that Core issue, the type of *p is a reference. In comment 1 the type of t
is not a reference, it's just T, so it should work. Clang and EDG accept it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116406
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=116399
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't agree. Containers do:
class X {
using iterator = ;
iterator begin();
iterator end();
};
So clearly the type is the same.
That's not how text_encoding::aliases_view is specified.
The stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116399
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Implementation-defined means the implementation must define it (and document
it).
If the implementation says the types are different, then they're different, and
it's not a common range.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|richard.guenther at gmail dot com |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression][PPC64LE]|[12/13/14/15
|atomic
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
