https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88242
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
So from the discussion
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41785
I think this also is actually ill-formed code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
rene.r...@fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rene.r...@fu-berlin.de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Oct 14 08:14:23 2019
New Revision: 276953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Fortran] PR 92072 – fix %C corner case
PR fortran/92072
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92084
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 14 08:28:05 2019
New Revision: 276954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92084
* semantics.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 19:31, sotrdg sotrdg wrote:
>
> https://github.com/euloanty/fast_io/blob/master/examples/0036.concepts_check/iostrm.cc
>
>
>
> cqwrteur@DESKTOP-7H7UHQ9:/mnt/d/hg/fast_io/examples/build$ ninja
> [1/2] Building CXX object
> CMakeFiles/iostrm.dir/0036.concepts_check/iostrm.cc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92081
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 14 08:48:42 2019
New Revision: 276956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276956&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/92081
* testsuite/libgomp.fortran/target-simd.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92081
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is it better now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91035
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I've just posted two patches to fix the remaining GO build problems on S/390.
Ian could you please pick those up to make GO build again on S/390?
Sync hardware facility names with other files in os_linux_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
>
> --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92085
Bug ID: 92085
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:86
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #39 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
> For small loop (1-2 stmts), in forms of GI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89964
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because the Double(int) constructor takes an int, and so passing it an int is
not a narrowing conversion.
Try defining that constructor differently and you'll get a warning about a
narrowing conversion ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92085
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
A variant of the same issue:
int a8;
void
c1 (int oz, int dk, int ub)
{
int *hd = 0;
long int *th = &dk;
while (ub < 1)
{
oz || dk;
++ub;
}
while (oz < 2)
{
long int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 11:47:15 2019
New Revision: 276959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92069
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
Bug ID: 92086
Summary: Provide way to avoid saving callee-saved registers in
functions without callers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #7 from Milian Wolff ---
to me, that backtrace looks quite nice and usable - a huge improvement, thanks!
what you are saying is that if the same file would be calling sin/cos somewhere
else, only one of those inline locations would s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I dont see this helping code in real life programs. Can you explain where you
think this could be used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92087
Bug ID: 92087
Summary: Do front-end optimization and warnings using basic
blocks and value or propagation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92087
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Milian Wolff from comment #7)
> to me, that backtrace looks quite nice and usable - a huge improvement,
> thanks!
>
> what you are saying is that if the same file would be calling sin/cos
> som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
It also saves stack space.
I'm not sure if it is prudent to repurpose noreturn+nothrow for this. There
might be existing such functions where people expect to see a full call stack.
Something more explicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I dont see this helping code in real life programs. Can you explain where
> you think this could be used?
The thread start routine wrapper in glibc. On x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #9 from Milian Wolff ---
> And I'm not sure that the original behavior which for
> this particular case would simply say sin() was called from foo()
This would indeed be the best, but that didn't happen originally when `foo`
itself g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92075
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 14:03:35 2019
New Revision: 276963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/92046
* dse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
Bug ID: 92088
Summary: aggregates with VLAs and nested functions are broken
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lutztonineubert at gmail dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47030
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47030&action=edit
double64-4.diff: patch that also supports --with-long-double64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89327
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #7 from pj at patrickjohnston dot org ---
Yeah but the `variant{600}` doesn't fail to compile due to this
narrowing conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827
--- Comment #22 from Luke Robison ---
(In reply to Luke Robison from comment #21)
> (1) Changing some or all of the "type(levelNN)" definitions to
> "class(levelNN)" definitions
> (2) Changing from "allocatable" to "pointer"
>
Although these wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Work has been restarted, we should have this feature fairly soon. Certainly
the plan is to have it in GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46429|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
A new attribute is not very enticing. First, it is yet another special-purpose
attribute, which can also be surprisingly hard to define what it should do.
Because it is a special attribute, the feature
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because the narrowing conversion happens inside the Double(int) constructor.
The constrain on the variant(T&&) constructor only checks if a Double can be
constructed from an int without narrowing. Which it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92083
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note also that glibc does not support being built with a different long
double ABI from the default one. On architectures where more than one
long double format is supported by glibc, eith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
There are various existing bug reports for ICEs involving VLAs and nested
functions (e.g. 59711, 60085, 69193, 70418). I don't know which might be
related to this one (and even if some are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47031|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85806
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82380
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82380
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I tested it with "concept" not "concept bool" i.e.
template
concept C = true;
template
requires C
[[nodiscard]] int f(T t) {
return 22;
}
int main() {
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85806
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I tested it with "concept" not "concept bool" i.e.
template
concept HasCount = requires {
typename ::helper;
};
struct S {
int count = 42;
};
static_assert(!HasCount);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67225, which changed state.
Bug 67225 Summary: [concepts] Expression constraint with a constrained result
turns off access checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67225
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92089
Bug ID: 92089
Summary: [concepts] requires-expression results in hard error
during constraint checking
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92089
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71125
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71136
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68372
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68045
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't get an ICE with current trunk.
I don't think the crash is actually related to concepts, if the same problem
happened for fortran code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67148
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67148, which changed state.
Bug 67148 Summary: [concepts] Failed concept check when indirecting through a
constrained trait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67148
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88338
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #9 from pj at patrickjohnston dot org ---
I'm sorry to belabour this, but I don't see how narrowing conversions even has
anything to do with p0608.
The only modification described by the paper (relevant to this case) is the
requiremen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88515
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89913
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85263
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86009
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Trunk now says:
86009.cc:3:11: error: expected 'auto' or 'decltype(auto)' after 'C1'
3 | void f(C0 *) { }
| ^~
86009.cc:3:8: error: expected 'auto' or 'decltype(auto)' after 'C0'
3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87536
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems to be fixed on trunk:
87536.cc:2:13: error: 'X' was not declared in this scope
2 | concept X = X;
| ^
87536.cc:2:16: error: expected primary-expression before '>' token
2 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79982
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No crash on current trunk, with an updated example using C++2a syntax:
template concept Void = __is_same_as(T, void);
template
concept my_concept = requires(T t)
{
requires requires (int val) { { t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80268
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90928
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
Marshall Clow changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mclow.lists at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #11 from Marshall Clow ---
With wrapping:
> Proposed Resolution:
> This paper proposes to constrain the variant converting constructor and the
> converting assignment operator to prevent narrowing conversions
> and conversions to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
Bug ID: 92090
Summary: [10 regression] ICE in
gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c starting with
r276469
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71125
--- Comment #2 from Casey Carter ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Is this valid in C++20?
Definitely not: there are no concept functions in C++20.
>
> I think G++ is correct to reject it due to redeclaring C1, C2 etc. as a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #12 from pj at patrickjohnston dot org ---
Intentions aside, the concrete change given at the bottom of the paper doesn't
seem to reflect the non-narrowing conversion constraint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It also causes these assembler instruction count tests to fail.
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439-1.c scan-assembler-times \\mbl f\\M 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439-1.c scan-assembler-times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85254
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88329, which changed state.
Bug 88329 Summary: Implement C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 88329, which changed state.
Bug 88329 Summary: Implement C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
The regression is because we now inline covered into digits2:
IPA function summary for digits_2/29 inlinable
global time: 1553.078985
self size: 1295
global size: 1295
min size: 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 14 20:13:49 2019
New Revision: 276968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91930 - ICE with constrained inherited default ctor.
The t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92091
Bug ID: 92091
Summary: Inconsistent diagnostics for INCLUDE vs. #include
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92092
Bug ID: 92092
Summary: Spurious warning: '' may be used
uninitialized in this function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
Bug ID: 92093
Summary: New test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr91275.c from
r276410 fails on BE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71125
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Sutton ---
The TS did allow overloading function concepts.
Function concepts have some parsing issues related to TS-style terse notation,
overloading and variadic templates. In particular, there are places where
writin
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
