https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93611
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7bec5d5edeaab404931bf599821c6c2a3023b47
commit r10-6498-ge7bec5d5edeaab404931bf599821c6c2a3023b47
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93594
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f82617f229b336d856c18313339b14657e05c129
commit r10-6499-gf82617f229b336d856c18313339b14657e05c129
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
--- Comment #1 from bastien penavayre ---
Note that this error only occurs with functions/methods
template
struct ok
{
template
using type = int;
template
struct otype {};
};
int main()
{
ok<0>::type<> t; //ok
ok<0>::otype<>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
--- Comment #11 from G. Steinmetz ---
A generator might be helpful for validations :
$ cat generator_char_data.f90
program generator_char_data
implicit none
character(*), parameter :: fmt = '(*(a,i0))'
integer :: i, j, nfile
!- varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93615
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:811a475ea3fcc55ee4aea7c81171891ef19dfc25
commit r10-6500-g811a475ea3fcc55ee4aea7c81171891ef19dfc25
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paolo Carlini :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c58e6cc32c4e36032701e3bc5caa136a35231b5d
commit r10-6501-gc58e6cc32c4e36032701e3bc5caa136a35231b5d
Author: Paolo Carlini
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c006911de91ca9e23d7d2df069499c768d215eac
commit r10-6502-gc006911de91ca9e23d7d2df069499c768d215eac
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93611
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Current glibc uses
#ifdef __has_include
# if __has_include ("linux/stat.h")
# include "linux/stat.h"
# ifdef STATX_TYPE
# define __statx_timestamp_defined 1
# define __statx_defined 1
# endif
# endif
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Related to c++/84939
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91146
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91759
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
--- Comment #2 from Laurent Stacul ---
Ok. To ease your work I wrote this small reproducer:
#include
class A {
struct State {
int flag;
std::atomic next_[];
};
void state(int f) {
State s;
s.flag = f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
--- Comment #3 from Laurent Stacul ---
Created attachment 47795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47795&action=edit
preprocessed sources
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91954
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
IPA SRA splits the struct B parameter:
Evaluating analysis results for bar/0
Will split parameter 0
- component at byte offset 0, size 4
- component at byte offset 4, size 4
- component at byt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92556
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea5ca698dca15dc86b823661ac357a30b49dd0f6
commit r10-6503-gea5ca698dca15dc86b823661ac357a30b49dd0f6
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 7 03:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:850c38f5f4158a157fa792ca0b20a5a17a3ff642
commit r9-8204-g850c38f5f4158a157fa792ca0b20a5a17a3ff642
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93519
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c7a03bc360c3511fae3747a71e579e9fd0824f9
commit r10-6505-g3c7a03bc360c3511fae3747a71e579e9fd0824f9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91954
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
GIMPLE testcase:
struct A { float x, y; };
struct B { struct A t; };
float __GIMPLE (ssa,startwith("fre"))
foo (float a, int i)
{
struct B D_2220[32];
float *_23;
float _27;
float _28;
float _31;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88521
Bug 88521 depends on bug 85667, which changed state.
Bug 85667 Summary: ms_abi rules aren't followed when returning and passing
short structs with float and double values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93622
Bug ID: 93622
Summary: bool register arguments are underspecified on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
Bug ID: 93623
Summary: No need to dump gcdas when forking
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93624
Bug ID: 93624
Summary: Memory leak with allocatable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93622
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> clang doesn't follow the psABI.
How can it possibly do so while staying binary compatible?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92517
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82aee6dd61e2a5b4e4b124f896c8403169688f41
commit r10-6506-g82aee6dd61e2a5b4e4b124f896c8403169688f41
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With
struct S {
unsigned int s1:1;
unsigned int s2:1;
unsigned int s3:1;
unsigned int s4:1;
unsigned int s5:4;
unsigned char s6;
unsigned short s7;
unsigned short s8;
};
struct T {
int t1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92517
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92947
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry, looking into this again. A problem I see with my fix is that with it
this assert fails:
struct A { };
struct B { };
static_assert (!__is_trivially_constructible(A, B), "");
i.e. we say __is_triviall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #214 from Rich Felker ---
I'm not particular in terms of the path it takes as long as this gets back to a
status where it's on the radar for fixing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #12 from Rich Felker ---
Note that -fexcess-precision=standard is not available in C++ mode to fix this.
However, -ffloat-store should also ensure consistency to the optimizer
(necessary to prevent this bug, and other variants of it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93622
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
I guess you are right, since clang compiles
bool f(int a, int b) { return a == b; }
into
f(int, int):
cmp edi, esi
seteal
ret
Where sete does't change the 7 high
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #11)
> A generator might be helpful for validations :
>
Thanks. AFAICT, the patch I submitted yesterday
rejects the generated codes, because
> if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93626
Bug ID: 93626
Summary: [GCOV] incorrect coverage when compiled with option
'-fsanitize=undefined' for typedef struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93625
Bug ID: 93625
Summary: inline specifier in a friend function declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
So the problems seems to be that get_ref_base_an_extent returns
different sizes for expressions of the same type - specifically a
RECORD_TYPE with padding - when one is a standalone VAR_DECL and the
other a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79314
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #215 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status
the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. I think that
the correct one is CONFIRMED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93625
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93625
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This was changed for C++11 by
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#281 and is a DR
against C++03 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93588
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
It is because load/store costs of vector registers for register allocator
are too low. This patch fixes it:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
b/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
index c73917e5a62..54b9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92797
--- Comment #4 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
At what point does the D demangler kick in? It should only attempt to parse
symbols that begin with '_D'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93627
Bug ID: 93627
Summary: inconsistencies between sprintf and strcpy overflow
warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91666
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82318
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Do you have any reference to a proposal to that effect? The current
wording in N2454 regarding this says "IEC 60559 requires operations with
specified operand and result formats. Therefor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #216 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #215)
> According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status
> the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. I think t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #138 from EML ---
I think you need the patch from comment 63 as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92875
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This has nothing to do with 84717. The present bug is simply invalid; GCC
is acting as specified in the C standard for excess precision. 84717 is
arguably a legitimate issue about lack o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92797
--- Comment #5 from Tim Ruehsen ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #4)
> At what point does the D demangler kick in? It should only attempt to parse
> symbols that begin with '_D'.
There is a reproducer attached. See my initial comment on ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92797
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #4)
> At what point does the D demangler kick in? It should only attempt to parse
> symbols that begin with '_D'.
Huh? D mangles symbols also starting with _Z. Why do you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82318
--- Comment #7 from Rich Felker ---
I'll inquire about it. Note that F.6 already requires this for C functions; the
loophole is just that the implementation itself does not inherently have to
consist of C functions.
If it's determined that C won
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #217 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status
> the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92797
--- Comment #7 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to ibuclaw from comment #4)
> > At what point does the D demangler kick in? It should only attempt to parse
> > symbols that begin with '_D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92654
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e042b396e2a84e3ee17bc52def1bf241cb7d248
commit r10-6517-g1e042b396e2a84e3ee17bc52def1bf241cb7d248
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93628
Bug ID: 93628
Summary: ranges::equal_to doesn't work for types convertible to
function pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92654
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93629
Bug ID: 93629
Summary: A completely non-sensical requires-clause is accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92517
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92947
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93629
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93630
Bug ID: 93630
Summary: Multi-dimensional array initialization converts empty
raw strings to NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92947
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac6eaa55a5199196ea0a25763114ce05333a14d3
commit r10-6519-gac6eaa55a5199196ea0a25763114ce05333a14d3
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92947
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92518
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu |powerpc64*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely aarch64.exp should do what mips.exp did back in 2008 with
g:c05854ec7da5f0e343c2387b0ca46bd55741f73e .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93630
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you try -no-pie also?
Also what version of the linker (binutils) you are using?
since the string constants will be in a mergable section, they will be merged
together and used only location. I wonder if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93630
--- Comment #3 from Rodrigo Rivas ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce, neither with 9.x, nor trunk, nor various revisions in
> between, different optimization levels etc. I get '' in all places where it
> should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #139 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #137)
> You need to at least apply patch from comment#72. This fixes regression
> from 4.7.x. You should also
> consider the last patch set from The Written Word. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #140 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to EML from comment #138)
> I think you need the patch from comment 63 as well
Hi EML, I apologize, was meant to respond to you directly but put everything in
one response under comment#139 to ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93630
--- Comment #4 from Rodrigo Rivas ---
Reproduced with 9.1 and 9.2 here:
https://godbolt.org/z/ZeEsuc
Trunk seems immune, though. Maybe it is already fixed there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93631
Bug ID: 93631
Summary: internal compiler error: in gimple_ca ll_arg, at
gimple.h:3258
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93631
--- Comment #1 from Yongheng Chen ---
POC:
---
int f2 ( int x [ strcmp ( ) ] , int b ) { return c - b ;
}
int ( * f1 ( int a , enum E2 { E = -2 , F , G , H }
b ) ) ( int c , int b ) { if ( a != b ) return f2 ;
return 0 ;
}
int main ( ) { in
96 matches
Mail list logo
