https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Probably makes sense to remove that extra condition on the 11 branch now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51405
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97219
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101698
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65211
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82980
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Summary|[9/10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104646
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102987
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102156
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102651
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102651
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101500
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc |[C++17] [DR2311] gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100545
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100545
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 52829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52829&action=edit
fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102629
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104470
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98423
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106202
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106202
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98423
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87729
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #12)
> This still starts to produces spurious warnings for diamond inheritance:
Fixed, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106370
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Reduced:
struct A {
A();
operator int();
};
template struct array {
A elts[N];
A *begin();
A *end();
};
void fn() {
for (int i : array<4>{})
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.1.1
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #17)
> There's probably a way to help the optimizer out without the
> __builtin_unreachable hammer, as for 98465; suggestions are welcome.
..like https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106793
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106793
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106567
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106893
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106756
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] Overbroad |[CWG1699] Overbroad
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106567
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> So...could we keep doing what we're doing for non side-effect code, and only
> do the outline function for side-effect stuff? Or is that too much to ask?
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107097
Bug ID: 107097
Summary: Implement floating point excess precision in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107097
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-30
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107126
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55713
Bug 55713 depends on bug 93711, which changed state.
Bug 93711 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: [[no_unique_address] when constructing
via template helper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93050
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102191
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101961
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbtrash at yandex dot ru
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61611
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20040
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72768
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100588
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53868
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
Bug 93033 depends on bug 66139, which changed state.
Bug 66139 Summary: destructor not called for members of partially constructed
anonymous struct/array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Bug 93922 depends on bug 66139, which changed state.
Bug 66139 Summary: destructor not called for members of partially constructed
anonymous struct/array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
Bug 94041 depends on bug 66139, which changed state.
Bug 66139 Summary: destructor not called for members of partially constructed
anonymous struct/array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61611
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65591
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 65591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103936
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103946
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104007
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104025
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 52213 [details]
> gcc12-pr104025.patch
>
> Untested fix. I think the old input_location is the right one.
I think the bug is that cp_lexer_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104007
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104025
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100198
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Nested classes/enums like this are broken in pack expansions if they depend on
parameter packs. The patch for PR100109 changed this from rejects-valid to
ice-on-valid, but it isn't something newly broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102300
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102300
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10/11 Regression]
|Q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101405
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101405
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104139
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104139
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101072
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103598
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
I'm persuaded by your argument that we don't need to care about compatibility
with the 8.1 handling of these types, which weren't yet really usable, so we
can go with the simpler patch. But I'd like to hea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Internal |[11 Regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104184
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104235
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
501 - 600 of 1570 matches
Mail list logo