https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64869
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Looking more closely, the enumeration literals are visible since GCC 8, but the
primitive subprograms still are not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dangelog at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115032
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85e1714b0606579a339c234510063e057fe662af
commit r15-7300-g85e1714b0606579a339c234510063e057fe662af
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118689
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85e1714b0606579a339c234510063e057fe662af
commit r15-7300-g85e1714b0606579a339c234510063e057fe662af
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> Created attachment 60337 [details]
> A patch with tests
This patch isn't necessary. It is OK to indirect call via memory for
-mforce-indirect-call. The old codegen is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #15 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
(In reply to Maxim Egorushkin from comment #14)
> (In reply to Marco Elver from comment #0)
> > On X86-64 the callee preserves all general purpose registers, except for
> > R11. R11 can be used as a scra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118703
Bug 118703 depends on bug 118689, which changed state.
Bug 118689 Summary: [15 regression] Abort compiling m2pim_NumberIO_BinToStr
since r15-7223-g92a5c5100c2519
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118689
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
But -mindirect-branch-register isn't handled properly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:319f1d042179b381becf4bf1d0f6b9dab6e84884
commit r15-7301-g319f1d042179b381becf4bf1d0f6b9dab6e84884
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118689
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
[...]
> Here is a fix for the ICE on the build_cltz_expr side.
> And m2 FE should be extended to provide those builtins.
>
> 2025-01-30 Jakub Je
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
--- Comment #26 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f34558100e8466aa70373e2f930bf1013192ba8
commit r15-7302-g5f34558100e8466aa70373e2f930bf1013192ba8
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jan 31 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118713
Bug ID: 118713
Summary: -mindirect-branch-register isn't handle for -fno-plt
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117498
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Should be fixed by r15-7249-gf1e776ce58ae4a on trunk, at least I can't
reproduce there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117498
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
It looks like the vectorizer thinks it aligns 'g':
.globl g
.bss
.align 16
.type g, @object
.size g, 1
g:
.zero 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-31
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Teylu ---
As a note, the code is minimised into "being invalid".
Here is a version that compiles without errors with 12.1 but still gives an ICE
on 14.2.1:
`stub.ads`:
```
package Stub is
type GenT is delta 1.0 r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
Bug ID: 118712
Summary: "Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory
access" with ranged types
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 60337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60337
A patch with tests
>@@ -10225,13 +10225,15 @@ ix86_expand_call (rtx retval, rtx fnaddr, rtx
>callarg1,
> fnaddr = g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #9 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
> For comparison, Clang doesn't warn.
... doesn't warn on (2) and (3), that is. (Those are the cases for which I
think GCC is wrong at emitting the warning.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117498
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fc0683082067801e3790f7cfffedbf5441e0f82
commit r15-7303-g9fc0683082067801e3790f7cfffedbf5441e0f82
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118703
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-07-11 00:00:00 |2025-1-31
--- Comment #6 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118716
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118491
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the plt section is generated by the linker and not gcc.
Though gcc generates references to the plt section.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Ryan Koehler from comment #4)
> Created attachment 60339 [details]
> Example code that throws error with this patch
Thanks. I was afraid that wrong code would occur or
I simply put
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
Bug ID: 118717
Summary: =gcc-15.0.1_pre20250126 produces ICE with ruby-3.4.1
when lto is used: ractor.c:592:1: internal compiler
error: SSA corruption
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
--- Comment #2 from Ted Rodgers ---
Created attachment 60341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60341&action=edit
thread.i file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118718
Bug ID: 118718
Summary: bogus -Wvexing-parse with trailing-return-type
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118718
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I have seen this one before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118718
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118718
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118716
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ravali Yatham from comment #0)
> Background: We have an agent code which was previously compiled with GCC
> 4.4.7 using libc 2.12 and libstdc++ : 6.0.13 and are planning to upgrade it
> to GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul-Antoine Arras :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af51fe9593ec0e9373f8a453bab2129a48193a44
commit r15-7307-gaf51fe9593ec0e9373f8a453bab2129a48193a44
Author: Paul-Antoine Arras
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118716
Bug ID: 118716
Summary: GCC(11.2) generating newer symbol for
std::string::compare while linking against older
runtime(libstdc++ : 6.0.13)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Koehler ---
I made the first patch you recommended to the compiler and my sample code did
indeed compile. When I took the patched compiler back into the much larger code
base to compile, I ran into another internal compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
--- Comment #3 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
@Rainer, could you try with the patch I just committed, see if it actually
fixes it for Solaris?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
> @Rainer, could you try with the patch I just committed, see if it actually
> fixes it for Solaris?
Sure, will do. This will take a day o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41227
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-07-29 00:00:00 |2025-1-31
--- Comment #6 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Koehler ---
Hey, I lied. I think the patch introduced a new compiler bug. When I pulled and
patched gcc (15.0.1 experimental) I ran into the bug that I mentioned in my
previous comment.
here is the error message:
pier_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Koehler ---
Created attachment 60339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60339&action=edit
Example code that throws error with this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #7 from Ryan Koehler ---
Created attachment 60342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60342&action=edit
Code that compiles with the patch and ifx, but not with gfortran 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
--- Comment #1 from Ted Rodgers ---
Created attachment 60340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60340&action=edit
ractor.i file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
The issue can also be reproduced with applying:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
index 33f19365ec3..4c062fe8a0e 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
@@ -255,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #6 from Ryan Koehler ---
I just attached a main program to work with the provided files. The internal
logic of the main program is garbage, but it does run the code and give an
errorless output. This code does not compile with gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
--- Comment #3 from Ted Rodgers ---
-march=native expands to:
-march=sapphirerapids -mabm -mno-sgx -mrtm -mshstk
--param=l1-cache-line-size=64 --param=l1-cache-size=48
--param=l2-cache-size=76800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #8 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
I just looked at your code in bugreport2.tar.gz. It uses a
parameterized derived type. PDT are broken on gfortran.
Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for PDT, and it has been
suggested it needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
--- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
So can this be closed as fixed (in v15+) ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
For some reason, unlikely_executed_stmt_p (and thus
unlikely_executed_bb_p) do not see that __builtin_unreachable is a
cold function:
(gdb) pt decl
>
QI
size
unit-size
al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|=gcc-15.0.1_pre20250126 |[15 Regression]
|prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also you should report to the folks you got the toolchain from
`--with-bugurl=https://bugs.linaro.org/` first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118717
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> fwiw this showed up when I started to force using `setjmp` instead of
> `__builtin_setjmp` in ruby a few days ago. I haven't looked at how (if at
> all) we treat tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108454
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6418fe22684f9335474d1fd405ade45954c069d
commit r15-7308-gd6418fe22684f9335474d1fd405ade45954c069d
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102370
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115004
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118720
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Green ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Created attachment 60347 [details]
> testcase
>
> Next time don't just link to godbolt but either attach the testcase or put
> it inline.
Ah, sorry, I thought a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118720
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Green ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> b -= n < (uint32_t)(10);
>
> Can produce undefined behavior. because now you are doing `work-1` which is
> before the array.
>
> ```
> static constexpr void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #13 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Not sure; N4659 says
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4659/expr.prim.lambda.capture#4
"The identifier in a simple-capture is looked up using the usual rules for
unqualified name lookup; each such l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118721
Bug ID: 118721
Summary: &array[-1] not always detected with
-fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118703
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60348&action=edit
Proposed fix for c[lt]z{l,ll}
Here is a proposed patch for the builtins c[lt]z{l,ll} with some test code.
Built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
`You may like to compile your code with `-fno-plt` to bypass calling those
pesky PLT stubs invented for OpenOffice. `
Bzz, PLT stubs and lazy binding were around in elf before OpenOffice
(StarOffice) was o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-03-18 00:00:00 |2025-1-31
--- Comment #17 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:decc6c0d4d909ce510b6533c48d70d0b353f909a
commit r15-7305-gdecc6c0d4d909ce510b6533c48d70d0b353f909a
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||parras at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Krupcale ---
Hey Paul,
Great, thanks for adding this testcase. Is there any change the fix in PR109066
will be applied to older branches, e.g. 13 and 14?
Matthew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Bug 65178 depends on bug 63278, which changed state.
Bug 63278 Summary: Fails to compute loop bound from constant string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63278
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Between 20250130 (9ba2de71815c0ea6cc940ecb50af7cc1a84579f7) and 20250131
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
Bug ID: 118715
Summary: Bad PLT asm generated on ARM thumb with PIC and LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118698
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW all compilers accept the code if you replace std::invocable with
std::is_invocable_v.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d97700443b45b947eda40dac7cf4d0397770b87
commit r15-7306-g0d97700443b45b947eda40dac7cf4d0397770b87
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117501
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[14 Regression] Consteval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118630
--- Comment #1 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Actually this is not legal in named modules (this is an exposure of the
TU-local lambda type), but it is legal in header modules where it also ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110993
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c0a9b7fb7902522fb8484342fcc19fd44df53e6
commit r15-7313-g2c0a9b7fb7902522fb8484342fcc19fd44df53e6
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Fri Jan 31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'm not planning to backport the match.pd pattern. I think it's quite safe,
but doesn't seem important enough. Leaving open in case someone disagrees.
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
