https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94534
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #53 from Liu Hao ---
For people who are not willing to turn off this warning:
This warning may be suppressed by introducing a volatile member in the union
that is used as the storage.
Using Martin Sebor's testcase, this look likes t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94079
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94023
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7c4084d11b957d925ba586f86db2f346fb3bfe0
commit r10-7646-ge7c4084d11b957d925ba586f86db2f346fb3bfe0
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Apr 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #22 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My nios2-elf test results look good now with this patch. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Simpler runtime testcase:
$ cat testcase.C
struct A { A *p = this; int m = 1; };
A
foo()
{
return {};
}
int
main()
{
A a = foo();
a.p->m++;
if (a.m != 2)
__builtin_abort ();
}
$ g++ -std=c++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
We also reject a constexpr version of the testcase:
$ cat testcase.C
struct A { A *p = this-1; int n = p->n; };
constexpr A
foo()
{
return {};
}
constexpr A a[2] = { {nullptr, 5}, foo() };
static_assert(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94305
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94305
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0dbfbd763ad77d6beaa345ce94afc93e193236e
commit r10-7644-gc0dbfbd763ad77d6beaa345ce94afc93e193236e
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537
Bug ID: 94537
Summary: Possibly wrong code with mandatory copy elision and
'this' pointer arithmetic inside an NSDMI
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Fred, the author of the paper, usually tests a number of compilers. In the
paper referenced from n2322 he mentions a bunch:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1911.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #10 from Alisdair Meredith ---
And double-checking the C++ Standard again, I think I have wording in favor of
my report and contradicting the recommended best practice for the pending C
standard:
[cpp.line]p2 "The line number of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94536
Bug ID: 94536
Summary: result keyword not working within module function
interface in combination with a module procedure body
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #9 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> The following proposal was accepted into C2X last year:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2322.htm
> It seems to me like it's about the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #8 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Why not do this:
> static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
>
> There that works for both cases.
The code example was intended to the be smallest reproducible examp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not do this:
static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
There that works for both cases.
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not do this:
static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
There that works for both cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522
--- Comment #5 from Linus Torvalds ---
Btw, Nick (who is doing this on the clang side, tells me that the tcmalloc
people are looking at using the asm goto with outputs too, so it's not just the
kernel.
If somebody wants to play with it, I do hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #4 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I miss-remembered the issue, the issue was only with preprocessor directives
> inside macro functions (this changed in GCC 3.3 and above really).
>
> But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>There is no multiline "macro function" here, there is an invocation of a
>macro, and the invocation spans multiple lines.
I miss-remembered the issue, the issue was only with preprocessor directives
insid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith ---
Thanks for the speedy response, really appreciated!
I believe this is well-defined behavior, but can accept that the value of
__LINE__ may be unspecified - I do struggle with pre-processor wording.
Ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522
Linus Torvalds changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvalds@linux-foundation.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Both values are valid I think.
Even rejecting the code is valid too; multiline macro functions are undefined
IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Bug ID: 94535
Summary: __LINE__ value changed for macro invocations spanning
multiple lines
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94534
Bug ID: 94534
Summary: ICE declaring unnamed nested struct as friend
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The wrong-code issue is now fixed, keeping open for the missed-optimization
part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] wrong |[8/9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0cc1b79b39994c917abb23f71064bb39eedcc70
commit r10-7640-gd0cc1b79b39994c917abb23f71064bb39eedcc70
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f52eb4f988992d393c69ee4ab76f236dced80e36
commit r10-7639-gf52eb4f988992d393c69ee4ab76f236dced80e36
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94342
Corey Tabaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eieio at google dot com
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c9a711575d8fdf9e75f01d7a0e84d558600df40
commit r10-7638-g6c9a711575d8fdf9e75f01d7a0e84d558600df40
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
commit r10-7637-g08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94120
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
commit r10-7637-g08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94507
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|errors in new test case |errors in new test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94507
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77d6dfc929832a542a25fc455b90f1a4bc83229c
commit r10-7636-g77d6dfc929832a542a25fc455b90f1a4bc83229c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Bug ID: 94533
Summary: errors in new test case g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C in
r10-7632
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Version|tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd9ca9d770a18ce4b16d867f49fef3293b483ff5
commit r10-7635-gdd9ca9d770a18ce4b16d867f49fef3293b483ff5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Bug ID: 94532
Summary: ICE while compiling speccpu2017 blender
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5f379653964a1d2c7037b2de3e947a48370a198
commit r10-7633-gc5f379653964a1d2c7037b2de3e947a48370a198
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Apr 8 09:4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70790
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
--- Comment #8 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> I can see uses that aren't just "frees the memory", e.g. after fclose and
> close any further uses of their argument are probably errors. The close case
> is i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Here is a rejects-valid testcase caused by the same underlying issue:
$ cat testcase.C
struct A { A *p = this; int n; };
constexpr A
foo()
{
return {};
}
constexpr A
bar()
{
A a = foo();
a.p->n = 5;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE:|[8/9 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8bf5faa9c463f0d53ffe835ba03d4502edfb959d
commit r10-7632-g8bf5faa9c463f0d53ffe835ba03d4502edfb959d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
I am still getting -1 at -O2 for
#include
#include
int count = 0;
__attribute__((malloc,noinline))
void* operator new[](unsigned long sz){++count;return ::operator new(sz);}
void operator delete[](void* ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #47 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:faa0817311f43e0d4d223d53c816b0c74ec35c4e
commit r10-7631-gfaa0817311f43e0d4d223d53c816b0c74ec35c4e
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Started with r154518:
pt.c (determine_specialization): Give helpful error about missing "template<>".
* pt.c (determine_specialization): Give helpful error about missing
"template<>".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.7
Summary|Wrong error m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70df40cab6f268ba7f05c6d1421928cca0834ee3
commit r10-7628-g70df40cab6f268ba7f05c6d1421928cca0834ee3
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
The bug, I haven't tested the patch yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94531
Bug ID: 94531
Summary: gcc.target/arm/its.c fails for cortex-m3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You mean the bug or the proposed patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93339
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
Luis Machado changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #5 from Luis Machado ---
Thanks for confirming this behavior. There have been some changes to the DWARF
unwinding code that exposed this particular case. I'm guessing this will need
to go back to GDB for a fixup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] gcc |[8/9 Regression] gcc
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Luis Machado from comment #3)
> The lack of a rule for LR means GDB will assume the register is UNSPECIFIED.
> Is GCC assuming this register is considered to have the same value as an
> inner frame?
Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12f55e030ed068d5c7b14c65a74d102db925dab2
commit r10-7622-g12f55e030ed068d5c7b14c65a74d102db925dab2
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #3 from Luis Machado ---
Here's a DWARF and asm dump from the same binary:
00d0 001c FDE cie=
pc=07f4..0830
DW_CFA_advance_loc: 4 to 07f8
DW_CFA_def_cfa_offset: 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94490
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94528
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cf6b06cb5b02c053738e2975e3b7a4b3c577401
commit r10-7620-g4cf6b06cb5b02c053738e2975e3b7a4b3c577401
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado ---
CC-ing ARM folks so they can assign this to whoever is more appropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94478
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94478
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6479aa4c0532ee9ad1f098b4e82de9dc684e036
commit r10-7619-ga6479aa4c0532ee9ad1f098b4e82de9dc684e036
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
So for the CSE issue we go through the equivalence chain and find
(gdb) p debug_rtx (p->exp)
(mem/j:SI (reg/v/f:SI 48 [ ptr ]) [1 MEM[(struct aa *)ptr_1(D)].a.u.i+0 S4
A32])
5076 if (GET_CODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Andrea Corallo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea.corallo at arm dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48241&action=edit
patch for the DW_AT_declaration idea
So this is a patch implementing DW_AT_declaration + DW_AT_specification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Bug ID: 94530
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in rhs_regno
(rtl.h:1924) with -Os -mcpu=falkor
-mpc-relative-literal-loads -mcmodel=large
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70b55b25aa14b60f0e0f0193f7178bae756076ad
commit r10-7617-g70b55b25aa14b60f0e0f0193f7178bae756076ad
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48239&action=edit
gcc10-pr94524.patch
Full untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94529
Bug ID: 94529
Summary: Wrong error message for template member function
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arnaud Giersch from comment #2)
> Hi,
>
> Faced with the same problem, I noticed that it fails only with -std=c++14
> (not with c++17, nor c++20).
Good point! I can only confirm that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523
Arnaud Giersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnaud.giersch at free dot fr
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91628
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91628
--- Comment #19 from stli at linux dot ibm.com ---
Fixed with gcc commit "S/390: Fix PR91628"
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=88e508f9f112acd07d0c49c53589160db8c85fcd
If somebody is backporting this fix, please also backport
gcc co
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
