https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90455
Bug ID: 90455
Summary: braced-init and incomplete type instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87358
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Lijian Zhang from comment #9)
> Hi Andrew,
> I only reproduced this issue with gcc-7.3.0, but not able to reproduce the
> failure with gcc-8.2.0/gcc-8.1.0
FSF released GCC 7.3.0 does not have t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90357
--- Comment #3 from paulhua at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paulhua
Date: Tue May 14 03:25:38 2019
New Revision: 271147
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR90357.
2019-05-14 Chenghua Xu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90357
--- Comment #2 from paulhua at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paulhua
Date: Tue May 14 01:42:59 2019
New Revision: 271146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271146&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[MIPS] Skip forward src into next insn when the SRC reg is d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That wording is long including several examples. You can see it in
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf subclause
6.7.2.1 (C99 + TC1 + TC2 + TC3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89424
--- Comment #4 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon May 13 21:27:29 2019
New Revision: 271137
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271137&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-13 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
please could you print the output of:
DYLD_PRINT_LIBRARIES=1 ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
Bug 89864 depends on bug 90379, which changed state.
Bug 90379 Summary: Gcc 9.1 fails "make check" on linux due to missing
MacOS-specific header file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #96 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon May 13 20:37:08 2019
New Revision: 271136
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271136&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport fix for PR90379
2019-05-13 Iain Sandoe
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon May 13 20:37:08 2019
New Revision: 271136
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271136&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport fix for PR90379
2019-05-13 Iain Sandoe
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90454
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 13 20:12:06 2019
New Revision: 271134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90454.cc path construction from void*
Make the filesystem::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90454
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
C++20 fixes this by iterator_traits requires is_object_v.
I think I have a patch implementing that for C++11 upwards...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90454
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90454
Bug ID: 90454
Summary: filesystem::path template constructor void* overload
interference
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46348&action=edit
binaries for test
here is the output from trunk at 27
For some reason the plugin isn't getting the "-Wl,-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Any check I add to libstdc++ now isn't going to help the 8.3.0 and 9.1.0
releases anyway, so a workaround (like using Solaris ln, or passing LN_S="cp
-pR" to make) will still be needed for them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We just use the AC_PROG_LN_S test from autoconf, see
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/Particular-Programs.html#index-AC_005fPROG_005fLN_005fS-287
Ideally that test would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
I posted a patch to improve diagnostics for this particular case:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00529.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #32 from Than McIntosh ---
Compile time for the larger example looks good for the most recent commit on
trunk (271124), ~130 seconds. Thanks for all your help on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to tobias.polzer from comment #19)
> My perspective is that they would ideally be packaged separately, maybe
> they would even find some love on GitHub 😉
The code would still exist, just not shi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #7 from Christian Jullien ---
The Solaris ln bug with 8.31 is described on this ticket:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2019-03/msg00045.html
If it is really the root of the reported issue, gcc is only culprit to not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon May 13 15:19:50 2019
New Revision: 271130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90418
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90453
Bug ID: 90453
Summary: PowerPC/AltiVec VSX: Provide
vec_pack/vec_unpackh/vec_unpackl for 32<->64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89221
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 13 14:58:38 2019
New Revision: 271129
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271129&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89221
* configure.ac (--enable-frame-poi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz ---
FWIW, I agree that "bit-inserting into a default-def" isn't a good idea. My
code, in the meantime, looks more like this (https://godbolt.org/z/D-yfZJ):
template
using V [[gnu::vector_size(16)]] = T;
templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #19 from tobias.polzer at gmail dot com ---
My perspective is that they would ideally be packaged separately, maybe
they would even find some love on GitHub 😉
That would obviously render them inaccessible to the programming
competition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #18 from tobias.polzer at gmail dot com ---
I used them in several toy programs, nothing "real".
Apart from that I found their implementation interesting to study.
On Mon, May 13, 2019, 16:41 redi at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> Tobias and Xi, does either of you actually use these PBDS containers for
> anything, or where you just looking at it for curiosity's sake?
>
> I'm considering wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Tobias and Xi, does either of you actually use these PBDS containers for
anything, or where you just looking at it for curiosity's sake?
I'm considering whether it's worth keeping the code in libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67960
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90449
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #34 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #26)
> Created attachment 46336 [details]
> Patch 2/2
Hi Martin,
sorry for a newbie question ... but, which version this patch applies on?
I mean, I would like to generate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
>
> current trunk (27), manual regeneration of the
> firmware.elf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
this repeats for the compiler build from r267372, confirming some latent issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
current trunk (27), manual regeneration of the
firmware.elf.ltrans0.ltrans.o ->
(it's kinda frustrating that one ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Beautiful, thanks Martin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90452
Bug ID: 90452
Summary: no warning for misaligned pointer to #pragma-pack'ed
fields
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > On Mon, 13 May 2019, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #6 from eligis at orange dot fr ---
You gave me probably the root of this issue with "dir containing a symlink to
the chosen file".
In March, I switched from coreutils 8.30 to 8.31.
Since then, trying to compile emacs failed because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Mon, 13 May 2019, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fab...@ritter-vogt.de
--- Comment #20 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 13 11:37:21 2019
New Revision: 271125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90402
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 13 May 2019, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
>
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 13 11:22:21 2019
New Revision: 271124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271124&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90316
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46347
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46347&action=edit
incremental patch
Unfortunately the 46339 attachment failed during bootstrap compare. The
attached
one incre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> this is on the rev *before* the change, using llvm-dwarfdump from the llvm-7
> branch:
>
> iains@gcc122:~/gcc-trunk/A$ ../../llvm-710-build/bin/llvm-dwarfdump --ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
this is on the rev *before* the change, using llvm-dwarfdump from the llvm-7
branch:
iains@gcc122:~/gcc-trunk/A$ ../../llvm-710-build/bin/llvm-dwarfdump --verify
firmware.elf
Verifying firmware.elf: file forma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #33 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #32)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #31)
> > Fixed on trunk so far.
>
> Thanks Martin!
>
> is this going to be released within 8.X or 9.X branches/versions?
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
nm -l fw.elf
also complains
nm: BFD (GNU Binutils; devel:gcc / openSUSE_Leap_42.3) 2.31.1.20180828-334
assertion fail ../../bfd/dwarf2.c:3750
nm: BFD (GNU Binutils; devel:gcc / openSUSE_Leap_42.3) 2.31.1.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I can reproduce the nm error when linking w/o the linker script. But
readelf is happy about the dwarf.
I'm not sure what the llvm dwarf linter complains about with
error: DIE address ranges are not c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90361
--- Comment #6 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
(In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #5)
> It would be nice at least document that for GCC 9.1.0 building with
> --with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible is broken.
>
> Possible workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #32 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #31)
> Fixed on trunk so far.
Thanks Martin!
is this going to be released within 8.X or 9.X branches/versions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Before the bisection the linker script probably managed to "fix" the debug
> info
> but the issue was latent. Without the linker script it works fine for me.
> Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90361
--- Comment #5 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
It would be nice at least document that for GCC 9.1.0 building with
--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible is broken.
Possible workaround is to build with default parameters and change
_GLIBCXX_U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so it's not operand_equal_p of d[f.1_1] and d[0] returning true but
the comparison involving the ao_ref pieces. And indeed the variable-offset
one is fenced off by
&& (mem_base = get_addr_bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #0)
> > 2) Can we always find the base object that's being referenced from the
> > gimple
> >statement where m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #16)
> Still you cannot reach code size as gcc-8.3.0 ? So something in new
> switch-case compilation generates larger code still?
The biggest difference from GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 13 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon May 13 10:26:09 2019
New Revision: 271118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix wrong usage of dump_printf_loc (PR tree-optimization/90416).
2019-05-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #16 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Still you cannot reach code size as gcc-8.3.0 ? So something in new switch-case
compilation generates larger code still?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Not exactly sure what happens, need to investigate. The testcase looks
> innocous enough at least ...
It's about 'd[f]' and 'd[0]' references. The former one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> I'd guess it was fixed by the patch for PR 86678.
Confirmed, it was fixed by r264171 for PR 86678.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86678
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #7)
> *** Bug 67026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Confirmed, it was fixed by r264171 for PR 67026.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Christian, could you please show the output of ls -lR
/export/home/jullien/gcc-8.3.0/obj/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/libstdc++-v3/include/sparc-sun-solaris2.10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see how changing "" to <> can make any difference. If the symlink is
present in
/export/home/jullien/gcc-8.3.0/obj/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/libstdc++-v3/include/sparc-sun-solaris2.10
then it will be fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
With addition of the arguments users can drive code growth more fine. May I
close this PR as resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The libstdc++ config should select one of these headers to use:
./config/cpu/i486/opt/ext/opt_random.h
./config/cpu/aarch64/opt/ext/opt_random.h
./config/cpu/generic/opt/ext/opt_random.h
There should be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For this reduced version (without the non-static function which is correctly
only getting one warning):
struct myclass{
[[deprecated("deprecated the static")]]
static void static_deprecate() { }
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90433
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90447
--- Comment #1 from Cassio Neri ---
Forgot to mention this discussion on SO:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56101507/is-there-anything-special-about-1-0x-regarding-adc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 11 May 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
>
> --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
> I had started by doing that but gave up wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Bug ID: 90451
Summary: "static" function which added "deprecated" print
deprecated warning >1 times (twice or even 3 times)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
