https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
Bug ID: 69482
Summary: Writing through pointers to volatile not always
preserved
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #24 from Roger Orr ---
Thanks Nick.
I've tried the patch (applied to 232400 as trunk seems to have other problems
on cygwin) and the build now completes successfully.
Additionally, the test case no longer crashes.
$ /usr/share/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69481
Bug ID: 69481
Summary: ICE with C++11 alias using with templates
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408
--- Comment #4 from night_ghost at ykoctpa dot ru ---
I can attach script which GCC has been built, and ZIP of the project tree which
cause crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69480
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This error happens after lhs is c_fully_fold()-ed, thus what %qE prints is a
symbolic representation of GCC's IR and no what the user wrote. Pretty-printing
is the root of all evil (PR35441, PR49152).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #49 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> Re Gaby's point about the error appearing in a sub-expression of a larger
> full expression, that's true
Now that the caret has been the default for se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69480
Bug ID: 69480
Summary: Bad error message on assigning to read-only
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65313
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69341
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28763
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64162
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
>
> --- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to jos...@codesourcer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68343
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #5)
> As said in bug 28314 (resolved as wontfix), __linux is not defined on
> Linux/PowerPC in C99 mode (-std=c99).
Just in case this isn't clear (because bug 2831
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #16 from Tyrel Haveman ---
Certainly that is an option in many cases. In my particular case this is
building on an OpenStack cloud instance and we've maxed out the resources we've
paid for, so I don't have the room to add swap space o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> __linux__ and __linux should always be defined for systems with the Linux
> kernel (plain linux only in non-ISO modes);
As said in bug 28314 (resolv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
__linux__ and __linux should always be defined for systems with the Linux
kernel (plain linux only in non-ISO modes); __gnu_linux__ for systems with
the Linux kernel and glibc (the nearest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Well, the versions with two underscores at the beginning and two underscores at
the end seem to always be present, if this is what is intended. However even
that is not completely clear. For GNU/Linux, one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17896
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
# git grep stack_realign_processed
shows how it is checked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65545
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
No, it's part of libiberty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||33512
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
/* Nonzero if function stack realignment estimation is done, namely
stack_realign_needed flag has been set before reload wrt estimated
stack alignment info. */
bool stack_realign_processed;
/* Non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> convert_scalars_to_vector (i.e. the stv pass) is before that though, it is
> inserted after combine, while ix86_finalize_stack_realign_flags is during
> pro_and_epilog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69479
Bug ID: 69479
Summary: test case gcc.dg/and-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
convert_scalars_to_vector (i.e. the stv pass) is before that though, it is
inserted after combine, while ix86_finalize_stack_realign_flags is during
pro_and_epilogue pass after RA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37466|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> Created attachment 37466 [details]
> A patch
>
> I am testing this.
This patch is wrong. After ix86_finalize_stack_realign_flags, there should
be no stack alignment chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
After ix86_finalize_stack_realign_flags, there should be no stack
alignment changes. convert_scalars_to_vector shouldn't change stack
alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.0
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The failures can be seen in the most recent test results:
Results for 6.0.0 20160125 (experimental) [trunk revision 232800] (GCC)
testsuite on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The purpose of macros like __linux__ or __linux is to enable users to write
code that's portable to different versions or distributions of the same OS
without necessarily testing it on them all, or even having
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
It seems that the static_assert should check _IsMove and use either
is_copy_assignable<_Tp> or is_move_assignable<_Tp> depending on its value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69477
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478
Bug ID: 69478
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] std::copy/std::move broken with
trivial move-only types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69477
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 37470
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37470&action=edit
Proposed patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> Backtrace from gdb:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x10cfcf74 in reg_save_code(int, machine_mode) [clone .lto_priv.8969]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69477
Bug ID: 69477
Summary: attribute aligned documentation misleading
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28366
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah yeah, why are we saving so many copies? That's just ridiculous. Well, we
should keep this around, then, and put it on the list...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I think I can reproduce it with powerpc64le-linux too (though, have just
> eyeballed assembly, not tried to run it).
> This looks like an IRA or reload problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Backtrace from gdb:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x10cfcf74 in reg_save_code(int, machine_mode) [clone .lto_priv.8969]
()
(gdb) bt
#0 0x10cfcf74 in reg_save_code(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69474
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69444
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 25 21:37:08 2016
New Revision: 232805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69444
* config/rs6000/sfp-machine.h: Fix a typo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69476
Bug ID: 69476
Summary: Fail to reconize types with an unrejected static size
attribute as compile time known size type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(see also PR 69453, which is related, but different)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 37469
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37469&action=edit
New patch
Here is an alternative patch. The problem is that memory_operand matches any
legal MIPS memory refere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 37468
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37468&action=edit
A patch
Here is a patch. Ilya, can you take care of this? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69475
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37467&action=edit
gcc6-pr69442.patch
Untested fix. Seems the above mentioned commit newly defined REG_EQUAL for
ZERO_EXTRACT lh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69006
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
v2 patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01915.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks. This is definitely an issue with the changing version #s changing the
ordering in which particular coalescing pairs are tried.
This is most likely coming from this (and related) code in tree-ssa-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68621
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 37466
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37466&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69475
Bug ID: 69475
Summary: [x32][6]: FTBFS: configure: error: cannot compute
sizeof (long long)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68398
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Jan 25 19:19:09 2016
New Revision: 232802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69196
PR tree-optimization/68398
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Jan 25 19:19:09 2016
New Revision: 232802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69196
PR tree-optimization/68398
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.3.0/cpp/System-specific-Predefined-Macros.html#System-specific-Predefined-Macros
This manual, being for all systems and machines, cannot tell you what their
names are, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #14)
> Would you be so good as to OK this patch to the list?
Sure, will do ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28366
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
What I meant by suboptimal is the eight vector stores when it seems that just
two instructions are needed to save the two vector registers that hold the
arguments like Clang does:
addi 3, 1, -48
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67839
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67524
--- Comment #4 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
With a recent version the message is now :
$ gfortran-6 --version
GNU Fortran (SUSE Linux) 6.0.0 20160121 (experimental) [trunk revision 232670]
$ gfortran-6 -c z1_imchfe.f90
z1_imchfe.f90:4:0:
fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69474
Bug ID: 69474
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class ‘expression’, have
‘declaration’ (var_decl) in tree_operand_check, at
tree.h:3504
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69474
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
$ gfortran-5.3.1 -c z1.f90
z1.f90:19:0:
z(1:n) = x([(i, i=n,1,-1)])
^
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
---
These assignment variants are accepted :
$ cat z2.f90
module m
type t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28314
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I opened bug 69473 to document the macros.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69473
Bug ID: 69473
Summary: system identification macros not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #10 from Abe ---
Adding either of the following flags to "-O1" causes the compiler to ICE on the
most-reduced test case; adding any of the other "-f<...>" flags I tested [39 of
them including the following 2] did not enable the ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
--- Comment #2 from wavexx at thregr dot org ---
On 25/01/16 18:38, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Why would either you or the makefile add something like -march=opteron on a
> haswell host?
>
> Surely the makefile should only add option that m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69472
Bug ID: 69472
Summary: [concepts] constraint ignored on constrained member
template of a class template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28314
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
FWIW, while looking into this bug I couldn't find the topic discussed in the
LSB where I would expect this to be specified. I did come across a couple of
sites on the web that gather this type of information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69460
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg0.html
However ...
(In reply to wavexx from comment #0)
> Since I generally override the default flags in makefiles by appending
> exceptions w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #9 from Abe ---
Further-reduced test case [13 bytes shorter: 76 bytes with 1-byte line
endings]...
[[noreturn]]void V(int);
struct R{R(const R&){}};
R f(){V(0);}
R c(){V(0);}
Additional notes:
* removing "__attribute__((noret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37064|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67839
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karaliusliudas+bugzilla@gma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69330
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #14 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
Would you be so good as to OK this patch to the list?
Thanks
Paul
On 22 January 2016 at 12:50, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
Bug ID: 69471
Summary: "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further
-march/-mtune flags
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68753
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28314
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
The STV p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> > The problem is gone if I revert revision r229540.
>
> A casual perusal on sym in gdb shows that the cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68199
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Revision 229540 isn't the problem.
At least it exposes the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Target Milestone|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||astralien3000 at yahoo dot fr
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69470
Bug ID: 69470
Summary: [concepts] bogus constrained member class template
redeclared with different access
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
