https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #29 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #28)
> As I've said before, the parallelization of ms-sysv.exp runs may be a
> bonus, but is certainly separate from this PR and thus should be split
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80966
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81032
Bug ID: 81032
Summary: [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE with lambda and broken
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80862
--- Comment #3 from Yulia Koval ---
Fixed by https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=249009
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81030
Bug ID: 81030
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O1 (only) on x86_64-linux-gnu:
verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81029
Bug ID: 81029
Summary: Compiling sketch with arduinodroid
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
After a lot of head scratching I think I am changing my mind on this one.
If one tries to assign to a real variable as in:
program test_b_write_dt_mod
use :: B_write_dt_mod
implicit none
type(B_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80966
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Jun 9 03:46:08 2017
New Revision: 249046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Don't add an immediate to r0 (PR80966)
If there is a large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81028
Hubert Tong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81028
Bug ID: 81028
Summary: miscompiles placement new
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81027
Bug ID: 81027
Summary: Assumed-shape array reported as deferred.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81000
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (Of course, a different implementation of std::any might be easier to
> optimize)
>From a quick test, if instead of storing a pointer to _S_manage we store a
pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81026
Bug ID: 81026
Summary: Lookup of dependent member template incorrectly finds
non-member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81025
--- Comment #3 from Doug Gilmore ---
It appears that r248863 just tickles the bug. With
the attached example produced by delta the failure mode
is exposed by r248862.With luck, I may be able to
bisect the problem to an earlier commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81015
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81015
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:42:59 2017
New Revision: 249039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81015
Revert:
2016-12-14 Uros B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59874
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:42:59 2017
New Revision: 249039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81015
Revert:
2016-12-14 Uros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80693
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0)
> Also, the costs dump in the first replacement looks wrong:
> original costs 0 + 4 + 4 = 0
This is correct: 0 means undefined. You usually get it from a
para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:23:34 2017
New Revision: 249038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81006
* c-typeck.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1): Con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:13:51 2017
New Revision: 249037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81006
* c-typeck.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1): Con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:12:38 2017
New Revision: 249036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81006
* c-typeck.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1): Con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:10:49 2017
New Revision: 249035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81006
* c-typeck.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1): Con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:04:40 2017
New Revision: 249034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81011
* cp-gimplify.c (cxx_omp_finish_clause): When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 19:02:09 2017
New Revision: 249032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81011
* cp-gimplify.c (cxx_omp_finish_clause): When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 18:55:04 2017
New Revision: 249031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81011
* cp-gimplify.c (cxx_omp_finish_clause): When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81025
Bug ID: 81025
Summary: [MIPS] soft-float glibc build fails at r248863
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81005
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 8 18:53:16 2017
New Revision: 249030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81005
* ubsan.c (instrument_null): Avoid poi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81025
--- Comment #2 from Doug Gilmore ---
Created attachment 41511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41511&action=edit
patch needed to build r248863 for MIPS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81025
--- Comment #1 from Doug Gilmore ---
Created attachment 41510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41510&action=edit
Patch to constrain the number of multi-lib variants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81023
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81015
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 8 17:28:19 2017
New Revision: 249028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81015
Revert:
2016-12-14 Uros B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59874
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 8 17:28:19 2017
New Revision: 249028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81015
Revert:
2016-12-14 Uros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78620
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux
Status|WAITI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41508
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41508&action=edit
What an unrolled cshift could look like
This is what an unrolled version of cshift could look like,
for a simpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, I'm planning to backport it to the branches too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I thought this was fixed only for certain floating-point formats - and
even for those, not globally for all targets (not for binary128 on 32-bit
targets)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks Martin!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81024
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE within |ICE within
|convert_li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79988
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Author: aivchenk
Date: Thu Jun 8 16:05:59 2017
New Revision: 249023
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249023&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Alexander Ivchenko
PR middle-end/79988
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you undo that change then you can't link C++17 programs using std::string at
all, not just using LTO. That's why the change was done in the first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81024
Bug ID: 81024
Summary: ICE within convert_like_real
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80973
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41507&action=edit
gcc8-pr80973.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #12 from Azat ---
> Started with r238959.
If you revert this then it fixes some of problems (even though this is a
temporary solution), but there are more, and now this is *only without -flto*
(i.e. -Wall "-Werror -Wunknown-pragmas -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81023
Bug ID: 81023
Summary: False positiv stack-use-after-scope (worked with GCC
6, fails with GCC 7)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81022
Bug ID: 81022
Summary: invalid address with pointer type casting
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 79990, which changed state.
Bug 79990 Summary: [CHKP] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7790
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
Bug ID: 81021
Summary: stack-use-after-scope false positive error with
exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81009
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, the constness can be cast away without changing the effect of the rule.
Similar to the C++ rule we discussed in bug 80794 I feel that constness is an
underappreciated opportunity to generate better code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
Bug ID: 81020
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O
-fno-tree-bit-ccp -fno-tree-coalesce-vars
-fno-tree-vrp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81019
Bug ID: 81019
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-ccp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jun 8 14:27:45 2017
New Revision: 249018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81017 add noexcept to std::function move operations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #5 from Sagar Shah ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Yes, and the move assignment operator.
cool.. thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80973
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sorry, that was intended to be a PM...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
--- Comment #3 from wschmidt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Hi Carl,
Just FYI, now that you've fixed the bug, and there are no plans to backport the
patch, you should go ahead and set the status of the bug to RESOLVED FIXED. I
know this differs f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-20 00:00:00 |2017-6-8
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, and the move assignment operator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 8 12:38:27 2017
New Revision: 249010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitize/80932
* c-c++-common/ubsan/pr80932.c: Test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Reproduced with -m32 on x86_64. Silly me. Will fix.
pr80932.c:10:88: runtime error: signed integer overflow: -413853711 * -6 cannot
be represented in type 'long int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2016-09-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
> For ODR violation bug we have a local patch in libsanitizer. Could you check
> whether you applied all local patches listed in libsaniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--- Comment #8 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Jun 8 11:24:50 2017
New Revision: 249009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR73350][PR80862] Improve subst for RC-capable insns.
PR target/73350,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trunk (checking=release):
trippels@gcc67 gcc % gcc -O0 -fsanitize=undefined
./gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/pr80932.c
trippels@gcc67 gcc % ./a.out
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/pr80932.c:10:88: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-06/msg00104.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-06/msg00105.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-06/msg00107.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #3 from Sagar Shah ---
thanks for taking a look at this.
Are we going to have noexcept added in the function move ctor.?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Can't reproduce. What arch, is that gcc or g++, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80959
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Can be also simulated with ObjC:
$ cat /tmp/objc.m
volatile int i;
int
foo (void)
{
@try {
switch (i)
{
case 1:
switch (i)
{
default:
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81003
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41500
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41500&action=edit
gcc8-pr81003.patch
We can't allow ->op to be something other than SSA_NAME or NULL (the latter
means GIMPLE_CON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80959
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So there's explanation what happens:
1) w/o -fsanitize=address:
decide_copy_try_finally returns true and so that we copy BB that contains
finally statement:
foo ()
{
int n;
int D.1806;
bar (&n);
i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80963
--- Comment #5 from Jan Engelhardt ---
>Where would those magic numbers come from? We don't have anything like that.
Maybe something similar to .build-id?, i.e. randomly-generated IDs (per .so)
that merely serve to distinguish two structs.
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Bug ID: 81018
Summary: [8 regression] gfortran.dg/graphite/pr14741.f90 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80963
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Engelhardt from comment #3)
> The question is more like - can it be made to work even if (In reply to
> Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >
> > That is Archive in the shared library and in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81001
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be related to const don't applies to the array itself but to the
type which the array is of in both c and c++ .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80963
--- Comment #3 from Jan Engelhardt ---
The question is more like - can it be made to work even if (In reply to Andrew
Pinski from comment #1)
>
> That is Archive in the shared library and in the main executable are
> considered two different cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
#include
#include
#include
struct Foo {
std::vector> vec;
std::function f;
};
int main()
{
std::vector vec;
vec.reserve(10);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
It goes from:
_ZNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEED1Ev/37 (__comp_dtor )
@0x7f9a6e65eb80
Type: function definition a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #28 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Besides, can you *pretty please* concentrate on the issue at hand in
> this PR, i.e. the failing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |lto
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
