https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 31 05:31:57 2015
New Revision: 221786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugins/61176
* Makefile.in (install-plugin): Add all gcc/*.{h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65636
Bug ID: 65636
Summary: [c++-concepts] ICE (Segmentation fault) when a type
requirement names a typedef or type alias
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65635
Bug ID: 65635
Summary: [c++-concepts] ICE in cp_tree_equal() during class
template partial specialization constraint matching
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57125
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61899
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61899
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toolchain at gentoo dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65634
Bug ID: 65634
Summary: [c++-concepts] ICE in check_noexcept_r() for a
noexcept constraint on a static member function call
requirement
Product: gcc
Version: unkno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> I confirm that the dejagnu 1.5.2-3 packaging in fink restores the correct
> results.
>
> Thanks for the debugging.
Fixed in dejagnu 1.5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65633
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 35188
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35188&action=edit
Proposed patch
HP-UX 11.00 and earlier do not have multibyte support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65633
Bug ID: 65633
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-string-literal.C -std=c++11
(test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65612
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01598.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 30 21:56:02 2015
New Revision: 221781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65610
* ipa-utils.h (inlined_polymorphic_ctor_dtor_block_p)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No decision has been made on whether or not to include either or both
approaches to fixing this BZ into GCC 5. It's still under evaluation/review.
I think for GCC 6 it's highly likely we'll have both sinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I've been thinking about how to integrate life/conflict analysis into the
uncprop code and it may not be that bad, both from an implementation and
computation standpoint.
Most importantly, we don't have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #27 from Patrick Marlier ---
I confirm that the patch fixes the performance problem that I had. I guess the
patch is too complex to be backported.
Thanks a lot Alexandre for the patch and to all for the deep analysis!
(just waiting f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Mar 30 20:47:40 2015
New Revision: 221778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-30 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/59513
* io/transfe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65590
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually at second thought, would BIT_FIELD_REF allow us to
avoid the actual memory store? I tought like COMPONENT_REF it takes address as
parameter. What I am hoping is to fully optimize out union doub x; at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Mar 30 18:39:17 2015
New Revision: 221777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65398
* constexpr.c (cxx_fold_indirect_ref): Don't perf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> But yes, in principle we can do sth fancy for union loads, though I'd
> use BIT_FIELD_REFs (hoping no issues wrt endian...) as the canonical
> and "easy" way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 30 17:54:05 2015
New Revision: 221776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/65597
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_do): For !simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 30 17:52:37 2015
New Revision: 221775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65630
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver: Export operator+ for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65632
--- Comment #3 from i.Dark_Templar ---
Created attachment 35187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35187&action=edit
0044-gengtypes.patch
Patch for fixing other issues. Found at
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65632
--- Comment #2 from i.Dark_Templar ---
Created attachment 35186
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35186&action=edit
freebsd-crosscompilation.patch
Patch for not including malloc.h. Made by me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65632
i.Dark_Templar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dark_templar at hotbox dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65632
Bug ID: 65632
Summary: gcc-4.8.4 fails to build native gcc for Gentoo/FreeBSD
using crosscompiler on Gentoo/Linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
> :
> x.d = arg1_3(D);
> _5 = x.i[3];
> if (_5 != 0)
> goto ;
> else
> goto ;
> ...
> :
> _12 = x.i[2];
> if (_12 != 0)
> goto ;
> else
> goto ;
>
> to sth like
>
> :
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #32 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Mar 30 16:51:37 2015
New Revision: 221772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-30 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/59513
* io/transfe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65631
Bug ID: 65631
Summary: seed_seq should not be copyable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Btw, I always wondered why dwarf2out.c doesn't create such stubs itself when
> it requires a parent (via force_decl_die).
Most probably because dwarf2out.c has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If we are going to export these it might make sense to add extern template
declarations, so the compiler knows the symbols will be in the library and
doesn't bother instantiating them. Otherwise the only pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63992
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65184
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65183
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Woehlke ---
Can this *please* get fixed? This really hurts the ability to use
-Wzero-as-null-ptr in particular. See
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-45291 for an example of the pain this
causes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65490
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65627
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So you think GCC should kind of JIT the loop and evaluate all iterations?
IMNSHO, just use sanitizers to catch bugs like that, -fsanitize=undefined
should catch that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65627
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |ipa
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Strictly nothing says it has to, but it works with the old std::string, because
we do export those functions from libstdc++.so
We also instantiate them for the new string, I just didn't add exports for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65630
Bug ID: 65630
Summary: [5 Regression] operator+ for new std::string not
exported
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65628
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65629
Bug ID: 65629
Summary: valgrind error in move_spill_restore
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65628
Bug ID: 65628
Summary: valgrind error in improve_allocation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65627
Bug ID: 65627
Summary: missed warning with -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
also failing from the same bug, gcc.dg/aru-2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I always wondered why dwarf2out.c doesn't create such stubs itself when it
requires a parent (via force_decl_die).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65626
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm that the patch fixed mosesdecoder compilation with enabled LTO.
Thanks,
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Doesn't help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So this should be more reproducible with -flto-partition=max and also with
nested functions?
I wonder if we need to call debug_hooks->function_decl for function
decls in lto_read_decls similar to how we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65626
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35181
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35181&action=edit
patch
Testing the attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65626
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65626
Bug ID: 65626
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in fixup_noreturn_call called by
tree-ssa-forwprop.c:2492
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Alexey Lapshin from comment #7)
> It looks like this fix makes alignment of atomic object to be the same as
> alignment of integral non-atomic object of the same size.
Actually it only did th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35180&action=edit
gcc5-pr65610.patch
Untested fix. Not at all sure about the if (!cfun->after_inlining) guard,
dunno when we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> The inline bump needed is about 23. Richard, i guess convincing early
> optimizers to turn that hack into shifts (that is done by GCC but only at
> RTL time), i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59621
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65623
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Aarch64_64 |Aarch64_64, powerpc64
Known to wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> Another testcase, derived from one attached to bug 65509:
>
> char s[] = "s";
>
> #define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X);
> SA((&s[0] + 0) != (&s[0] + 1));
>
> he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried:
--- gcc/ipa-polymorphic-call.c.jj2015-03-09 08:05:06.0 +0100
+++ gcc/ipa-polymorphic-call.c2015-03-30 11:24:48.280199943 +0200
@@ -513,6 +513,38 @@ contains_type_p (tree outer_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
g++ 4.8.3 output:
/home/marxin/Programming/seastar/1.ii:3:26: error: template declaration of ‘int
std::declval’
template int declval;
^
/home/marxin/Programming/seastar/1.ii:5:16:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can you make the testcase valid and still ICE?
The issue is caused just in case of invalid code.
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65622
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from ktk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P2
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Hello.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150330 (experimental)
$ cat 1.ii
namespace std {
template int declval;
typename std::declval<>
$ g++ -std=gnu++1y 1.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Actually, r218021 touches the argument expansion rather than builtin
> expansion functions, so I'm not sure that would fix it. But still, I can't
> reproduce this on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #8 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
Oh, thanks a lot! I've got it.
(And I've understood the reason why clang rejects it ;).)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65511
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Mitsuru Kariya from comment #6)
> I think that it should either
>
> 1) cause a compilation error at the definition of the eq1 if the result of
> "&s1[sizeof(s1)] == &s2[0]" is "unspecified".
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50676
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50676
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61635
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #6 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
I also found a strange behavior like below.
== sample code ==
#include
constexpr char s1[] = "s1";
constexpr char s2[] = "s2";
bool f(const char* p
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
