https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91057
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for the prompt fix, it works well!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Specificically:
/* This table lists each condition found in the machine description.
Each condition is mapped to its truth value (0 or 1), or -1 if that
cannot be calculated at compile time.
If we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57025
--- Comment #9 from Alan Coopersmith ---
And I got here this week due to the discussion on
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/2258/diffs?commit_id=78cd9c60eef40650bba1182d8bb51fc9beb938e2#note_254374
about why Mesa needed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83495
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > The binutils project has its own bug tracker at
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83495
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 91691, which changed state.
Bug 91691 Summary: Cross compiling glibc produces a false maybe-uninitialized
error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
Bug ID: 92062
Summary: ODR-use by static_assert ignored for static member of
class template
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John Harris from comment #2)
> I figured this out. The assignment operator doesn't have a return statement.
> Why that matters, I don't know. But adding return *this fixes it.
Because if you f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |patch
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #2 from John Harris ---
I figured this out. The assignment operator doesn't have a return statement.
Why that matters, I don't know. But adding return *this fixes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061
Bug ID: 92061
Summary: build of gencondmd fails with clang-9.0 (trunk, gcc
9.2.1, probably other older versions of gcc as yet
untested) with undefined symbols for
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Caused by
@@ -26326,9 +26559,9 @@ build_non_dependent_expr (tree expr)
unexpected recursive instantiations. */
&& !parsing_nsdmi ()
/* Don't do this during concept expansion either and fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92060
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92060
Bug ID: 92060
Summary: Alias template as template template argument confused
by GCC as other template
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91801
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91801
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Oct 10 21:56:08 2019
New Revision: 276853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91801
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Be aware that everything in the tr2 directory is unmaintained and untouched for
years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
Egmont Koblinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egmont at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code is:
a, b, c;
*d;
e() {
switch (c) {
case 33:
for (;; d++)
if (strcmp(b ?: "", d))
return;
case 4:
sprintf("", a);
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
Bug ID: 92059
Summary: Crash on tr2::dynamic_bitset::operator=() with
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92058
Bug ID: 92058
Summary: constinit disregards non-constexpr constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92058
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
--- Comment #20 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Thu Oct 10 19:44:26 2019
New Revision: 276851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-10 Xiong Hu Luo
Sandra Loosemore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
Bug ID: 92057
Summary: variant converting constructor fails for primitives
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691
--- Comment #4 from Alistair ---
Thanks for looking into this Jim. We have worked around it in glibc master, so
that's fine that it can't be back ported. I'm glad it has been fixed in the
latest version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92041
Jean-Paul Mari changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
Bug ID: 92056
Summary: ice in expr_object_size, at tree-object-si ze.c:675
with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 10 17:58:24 2019
New Revision: 276845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92022
* config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 10 17:45:40 2019
New Revision: 276844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276844&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92022
* config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:25:10PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
> This patch allows the code to compile, but I have no idea
> if it is correct.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
This patch allows the code to compile, but I have no idea
if it is correct.
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(revision 276837)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91034
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Oct 10 17:03:46 2019
New Revision: 276843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Documentation hyperlinks for [-Wname-of-option] (PR 87488)
This patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918
--- Comment #8 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Thu Oct 10 17:00:29 2019
New Revision: 276842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH 1/3] S/390: Do not use signaling vector comparisons on z13
z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Oct 10 16:57:30 2019
New Revision: 276841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276841&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
pretty-print: support URL escape sequences (PR 87488)
https://gist.git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And as for the constant, seems ICC also emits just constant load from memory
instead of trying two instructions instead and clang, while it uses broadcast
to save .rodata, doesn't use two instructions either:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|alignas for automatic |[7/8/9/10
|variables with alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47015
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47015&action=edit
Proposed extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
Bug ID: 92055
Summary: [avr] Support 64-bit double
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601
Bug 58601 depends on bug 92045, which changed state.
Bug 92045 Summary: [7/8/9/10 regression][C++11] valid alignas ignored with
spurious warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92045
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92045
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92054
Bug ID: 92054
Summary: `final` does not cause devirtualization of nested
calls
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wasn't the whole point of Segher's combiner changes not to propagate hard
registers into instructions to leave the RA more in control?
Propagating something in some other pass would undo that change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Since fwprop.c has
static rtx
propagate_rtx (rtx x, machine_mode mode, rtx old_rtx, rtx new_rtx,
bool speed)
{
rtx tem;
bool collapsed;
int flags;
if (REG_P (new_rtx) && REGNO (new_rtx) < F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91057
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That should be fixed at r276840
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 10 16:16:17 2019
New Revision: 276840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91057
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That should be fixed at r276840
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 10 16:16:17 2019
New Revision: 276840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 10 16:11:10 2019
New Revision: 276839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92022
* config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
Bug ID: 92053
Summary: Compilation fails or succeeds depending on the
optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91057
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's another problem. I'm testing the fix now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Oct 10 15:28:31 2019
New Revision: 276837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2019-10-10 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92052
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Oct 10 15:24:05 2019
New Revision: 276825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2019-10-10 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92052
Bug ID: 92052
Summary: No message for adding the noreturn attribute only
after the first declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Oct 10 15:21:27 2019
New Revision: 276809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/88630
* config/sh/sh.h (TARGET_FPU_SH4_300)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92051
Bug ID: 92051
Summary: Many aarch64 SVE tests fail with ICE (expected
integer_cst, have poly_int_cst in to_wide)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91323
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
It seems to me that register allocation has been a weak spot in gcc for years.
gcc often allocates registers in such a way that extra register moves are
necessary, compared to competition, like in this p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 10 14:02:25 2019
New Revision: 276807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-10 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/92046
* opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
Bug ID: 92050
Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_procedure_call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with the concepts merger r276764.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Bug ID: 92049
Summary: bogus errors with -fchecking=2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92037
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Oct 10 13:04:44 2019
New Revision: 276804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92037
* cgraph.c (symbol_table_test::symbol_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92037
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
It is lifetime dse issue in symbol table construction. I am testing
* cgraph.c (symbol_table_test::symbol_table_test): Use ggc_alloc
rather than ggc_alloc_cleared to alloc symbol table.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92048
Bug ID: 92048
Summary: [10 regression] armeb regression after r276645
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92047
Bug ID: 92047
Summary: [10 regression] aarch64 regressions after r276645
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92016
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47014
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47014&action=edit
prototype
Something like this. Note the behavior changes if the user manually specifies
any of the parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Bug ID: 92046
Summary: Command line options (that are per-functions) are
affecting --params which are global.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #4)
> see https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=gcc-9&arch=alpha
> the bootstrap succeeds, but the testsuite times out. That might be an
> unrelated issue, but I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
see https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=gcc-9&arch=alpha
the bootstrap succeeds, but the testsuite times out. That might be an unrelated
issue, but I can't tell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> The FRE redundant store removal went away in r273135 aka PR91091 fix.
I'll see whether I can do something about FRE. Redundant store removal
there isn't a go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
> yes, that fixes it, at least with a cross compiler. I don't have a native
> build yet.
I don't have access to alpha anymore, I can't bootstrap and regtest the pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92045
Bug ID: 92045
Summary: [7 8 9 10 regression][C++11] valid alignas ignored
with spurious warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The FRE redundant store removal went away in r273135 aka PR91091 fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
yes, that fixes it, at least with a cross compiler. I don't have a native
build yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91057
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sorry for not testing on a target that defines _GLIBCXX_LONG_DOUBLE_COMPAT.
Your patch is approved for trunk, please go ahead and commit it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92044
Bug ID: 92044
Summary: Poor diagnostics for concept that should be a
qualified-id
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72682
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
