https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90834
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This seems to be from "API extension for binutils (type of symbols)."
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94237
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-20
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94237
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin*
--- Comment #1 from I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #24)
> > --- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > unpatched GCC master, gcc-9.x, gcc-8.x and gcc-7.5 work for me with any SDK
> > >=
> > Xcode commandl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94288
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94288
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> > thanks for the report. The reduced testcase at c#2 doesn't fire for me once
> > pending updates are applied. However,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> git blame says:
>
> 49789fd08378 (Iain Sandoe 2020-01-18 11:54:46 + 2654) do_subtree = 0;
>
> Adding author.
indeed looks like a typo. thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
it is not mandatory (for C++20 compliance) that the implementation provides
symmetric transfer - so it could be switched off - or XFAILed.
However, users state that an impl. that can't do the symmetric transf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
Note1 : the 32b multilib works without any error.
Note2 : The dumps are gimple from symmetric-transfer-00-basic.C.020t.fixup_cfg1
which is the pass after all the coroutine-specific stuff is complete.
thus, Fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
so, it seems:
rs6000_function_ok_for_sibcall ()
calls rs6000_decl_ok_for_sibcall ()
which gets a NULL decl and thus this returns false
/* Under the AIX or ELFv2 ABIs we can't allow calls to non-lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> So not sure how to proceed here at the moment (I wonder if this works for
> PPC on the clang impl).
It does work for X86 (and ironically, on PPC Darwin too - where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> I'm going to discuss this with the coroutines paper authors - as to whether
> any constraints had been considered. Note,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #7)
> I'm seeing the same failure on Solaris/SPARC (32 and 64-bit).
Do you have any info on why the tail-call fails there?
(e.g. is it not possible to make an indirect tai
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This a bug reported by Eric Niebler when building the ranges-v3 code on
Darwin19, however it's not a Darwin-specific problem.
This is a very slippery bug to pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
there's a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/jwakely/e131d3a268a78764458186eff02f29ec
with Jonathan's valgrind session and some debug output from one case where I
managed to catch the fail under a debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
> Oh, it is from the template specialization hash table. I suggest making
> that very poor to increase collisions:
>
> pt.c:
> static hashval_t
> hash_tmpl_and_arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48175&action=edit
un-reduced pre-processed on x86_64-linux
working on reducing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #6)
> On 4/2/20 12:37 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Iai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48175|0 |1
is obsolete|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48237&action=edit
c-reduced reproducer.
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-07
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48238&action=edit
Patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94528
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93343
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94528
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||euloanty at live dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48251
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48251&action=edit
Patch for testing
coroutines: Fix compile error with symmetric transfers [PR94359]
For symmetric transfers to w
dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94528
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #10)
> I cannot reproduce it,
it is frustratingly difficult to do so.
> but looking at the gist referenced in comment #1 I
> see that the complaint is about two insta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c++
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> So, what exactly happens? Does GCC 4.2 e.g. fail to initialize all members
> to zeros in the
> - memset (data, 0, sizeof (*data));
> + *data = assign_parm_data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #14)
> That completely breaks aarch64 (almost every coroutines test):
apologies,
do you have any immediate idea why the aarch64_function_ok_for_sibcall
is failing the
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48307&action=edit
fix being tested
Coroutine ramp fu
||ice-on-valid-code
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-19
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48322
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48322&action=edit
fix being tested.
Reported indepe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94682
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94661
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48330&action=edit
patch under test
As reported by Michał Dominiak, the following code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94701
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94682
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94288
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-25
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48372
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48372&action=edit
fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94752
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48373&action=edit
fix under test
>From the stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94759
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48374&action=edit
fix under test
There was consi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94760
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94771
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94752
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For symmetric transfers to work with C++20 coroutines, it is
currently necessary to tail call the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94794
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94701
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94759
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94760
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94817
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544843.html
we are very close to branching for 10, so not sure if this will be included in
10.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94829
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544843.html
we are very close to branching for 10, so not sure if this will be included in
10.1
||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48421&action=edit
fix under test
The fo
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48423
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48423&action=edit
fix under test
The following
dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48424
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48424&action=edit
fix under te
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94879
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94886
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94883
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
It seems that parser.c:cp_convert_range_for () is not implementing the lowering
that its header comment outlines.
for this:
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94897
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93861
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-darwin*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93861
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91520
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> >
> > I plan on publishing an update to my alternate assembler/linker pair that
> > incorporates the changes from LLVM-
||wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48479
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48479&action=edit
patch under test
The following code does n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
please would you identify the platform(s) and configuration conditions?
I don't see these on at least
x86_64-linux-gnu, powerpc64-linux-gnu (m32, m64)
or on Darwin15, 18, 19 (m32, m64)
at r11-196
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95017
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95003
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lewissbaker.opensource@gmai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|iains at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95003
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
There are some gotchas with coroutines and references (both regular and
rvalue).
* there could still be a bug here, so I want to double-check.
Please could you expand your snippets of code into a small test-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #3)
> The test case I uploaded only shows the failure, it won't work if gcc worked
> as I expect it. I'll try to get a better testcase, unfortunately a small
> coroutine tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #5)
> This snippet from cppreference:
>
> If the coroutine is a non-static member function, such as task
> my_class::method1(int x) const;, its Promise type is
> st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #12)
> It sure seems to me that a coroutine lambda's captures should be copied to
> the coroutine state. I don't think the standard says that anywhere.
Maybe I am m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #17)
> (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> > > (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #12)
> > > T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
Avi, If we are agreed that there is no GCC bug here (the change from pointer to
reference is already in the queue)
I would suggest that new design discussion would be better by putting a paper
or suggestions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95050
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
Hi Rafael,
nor me, the coros implementation is a set of AST transforms - so is supposed to
present the following code with valid trees - which would be analysed "as
normal".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
It seems that the ubsan complaints look all rather similar.
At least for the following case, ubsan seems to cause a change which introduces
a bogus temporary use.
class-00-co-ret.C u=is a very simple coroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
perhaps I have some invalid sharing of trees that only causes an issue for
ubsan - will try build independent dtor trees for the two cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
r11-511 + this patch builds a stage1 debug compiler OK for me (issue reported
on irc).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48572
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48572&action=edit
fix for most of the UBSAN fails
Most of the UBSAN fails are from a single cause; I reused the built DTOR tree
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> The original problem:
>
> test.cc:3749:5: runtime error: member call on misaligned address
> 0x41b58ab3 for type 'struct awaiter', which requires 8 byte align
1 - 100 of 2918 matches
Mail list logo
