https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
Stephen Kitt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steve at sk2 dot org
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|steven at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40730
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|steven at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55402
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-11-20 00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|steven at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89589
Bug ID: 89589
Summary: [8.3 regression] "asm volatile (" leads to "expected
'(' before
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89505
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 5 08:26:32 2019
New Revision: 269383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-05 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
Bug 24546 depends on bug 37826, which changed state.
Bug 37826 Summary: gfortran emits incorrect debug information if compiled with
-finit-local-zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37826
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37826
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89589
Rolf Eike Beer changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://bugreports.qt.io/br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
Bug 48389 depends on bug 48486, which changed state.
Bug 48486 Summary: cfgexpand leaves BARRIERs at the end of basic blocks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eb at emlix dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I think there are two things here:
(1) checking earlier for whether an ifn is supported.
I think we should get genmatch to do that itself rather than
manually do it for each expansion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 27906, which changed state.
Bug 27906 Summary: reload allocates register of live register variable to
earlyclobber output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27906
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27906
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89566
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 08:43:16 2019
New Revision: 269384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89566
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 08:44:21 2019
New Revision: 269385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89570
* match.pd (vec_cond into cond_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> I think there are two things here:
>
> (1) checking earlier for whether an ifn is supported.
>
> I think we should get genmatch to do that itself rat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2016-03-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89584
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|CPU2000 degradat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28306
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-07-07 17:30:13 |2019-3-5
Host|i686-pc-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89560
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 09:03:50 2019
New Revision: 269386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/89560
* fold-const.c (fold_checksum_tree): D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> For VEC_COND_EXPR, yes, it is pretty usual on many of the targets that you
> can only do:
> _1 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_2 == _3, {-1, -1, ...}, {0, 0, .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 28144, which changed state.
Bug 28144 Summary: floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is
wrong for java
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Since it's now rejected with 8.3 there's no point in accepting it again
> (IMHO).
The point in accepting it again would be that people can skip 8.3 because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27394
Bug 27394 depends on bug 28144, which changed state.
Bug 28144 Summary: floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is
wrong for java
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That wouldn't help at all, the propagation in this PR is in forwprop4, after
vector lowering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> That wouldn't help at all, the propagation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29860
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> (2) not splitting out the condition in a (vec_)cond_expr if it
> isn't supported as a stand-alone operation
(2) can be just documented as a requireme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29944
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
Bug ID: 89590
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_emit_free_warning
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45891
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45891&action=edit
gcc9-pr89590.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89560
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89591
Bug ID: 89591
Summary: How can thread.joinable() reliably work if the
pthread_t id is not initialized?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66505
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89051
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
Bug ID: 89592
Summary: FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t025
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute against
GCC4.8
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89593
Bug ID: 89593
Summary: warning "passing argument 3 of
‘_gfortran_caf_{get,send}_by_ref’ from incompatible
pointer type" when building libgfortran
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68975
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68975
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since at least GCC 4.3, so probably when decltype itself was first supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
Bug ID: 89594
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
gsi_for_stmt(gimple*))
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
Bug ID: 89595
Summary: [8/9 Regression] DOM miscompiles code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
For some reason the testcase doesn't fail on the branch. DOM dump:
Visiting PHI node: i_3 = PHI <0(2), _9(3)>
Argument #0 (2 -> 4 executable)
0: [0, 0]
Argument #1 (3 -> 4 executable)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
I must also add: if we had decided to fix c++/89488 the way I originally
proposed https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/txtzrb81mYdom.txt we would
not have to fix this one too ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or desc->niter <= 1, dunno what exactly means if niter == 0, is that zero
iterations or unknown number of iterations?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Confirmed it is this revision even on the runtime testcase from
struct-layout-1.exp testing. The question is what if anything the psABI says
here, what do other compilers do etc. Passing flexible array memb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Taewook Oh from comment #5)
> The name of the function is "void llvm::SmallVectorTemplateBase >::grow(size_t) [with T =
> std::pair, const
> llvm::DICompositeType*>; bool = false]".
>
> I tried
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Mine. The CFG cleanup causes the .LOOP_VECTORIZED_CALL to vanish as well
because
if-conversion made us discover the dominating loops exit is never taken...
Before if-conversion we have
# _8 = PHI
zr_15 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Not sure if maybe checking gimple_bb () on the call stmt would be enough.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Like
Index: gcc/tree-if-conv.c
===
--- gcc/tree-if-conv.c (revision 269385)
+++ gcc/tree-if-conv.c (working copy)
@@ -3176,6 +3176,8 @@ pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-03-01 11:39:34 |2019-3-5
--- Comment #59 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45894&action=edit
gcc9-pr88568-2.patch
Untested fix for that. Apparently the C++ FE relies that static data members
have TREE_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started with r233126. Before that change, check2227 has not been NRV
> optimized, but now it is. That doesn't explain an ABI difference though.
Hmm?? I am getting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > Started with r233126. Before that change, check2227 has not been NRV
> > optimized, but now it is. That doesn't expl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 13:38:59 2019
New Revision: 269388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89487
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr89487.c: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89480
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89480
--- Comment #3 from Danila Kutenin ---
Also not sure if this should compile. But if change Foo{} to static_cast
all the compilers compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for
the type of a field at the particular position?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener ---
PRE is all find_base_term exploding ...
The LIM case is all store_motion () which is quadratic and the only
user of the quadratic in memory all_refs_stored_in_loop. The latter
would be reasonably easy to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for
> the type of a field at the particular position?
I was thinking about exactly this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Created attachment 45877 [details]
> test-case
Thanks; I'm able to see the behavior with that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89247
Bug 89247 depends on bug 89594, which changed state.
Bug 89594 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
gsi_for_stmt(gimple*))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:57:12 2019
New Revision: 269389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89594
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:04:01 2019
New Revision: 269390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR89222
The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:05:07 2019
New Revision: 269391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89570
* match.pd (vec_cond into cond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|[7/8/9 regression] ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|steven at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17652
Bug 17652 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23111
Bug 23111 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
Bug ID: 89596
Summary: [8 regression] Multiple templated conversion operators
result in compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
