https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83445
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Karzhenkov ---
Also note that const-qualifier on `Source::operator Target()` affects the
conversion sequence (see https://godbolt.org/z/MexGW9). This seems inconsistent
here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96700
Bug ID: 96700
Summary: undefined reference to `failure_on_line_796'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96622
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
Ah, thanks for the pointer.
I thought I had used -O0 in the larger project as well, but I hadn't.
Just as a suggestion, would it make sense to apply the coverage at the source
code level (before any optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 49078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49078&action=edit
Testcase 3
Finally, a testcase which is valid C. Note that cc1plus is still necessary to
trigger the ICE.
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96506
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96506
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43edad43b2cee17fb7575c40a9dafac3fe79ba1c
commit r10-8641-g43edad43b2cee17fb7575c40a9dafac3fe79ba1c
Author: Peter Bergner
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96699
Bug ID: 96699
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in
fold_convert_const_int_from_real, at fold-const.c:2038
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96698
Bug ID: 96698
Summary: aarch64: ICE during GIMPLE pass:vect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96651
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96648
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96651
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:623bc0276849d48ada5a7a2e3e94bd79de42c3db
commit r11-2754-g623bc0276849d48ada5a7a2e3e94bd79de42c3db
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96648
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:400abebf48a90d0797718ab7c3864de331e85b70
commit r11-2753-g400abebf48a90d0797718ab7c3864de331e85b70
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96697
Bug ID: 96697
Summary: Failure to optimize mod+div to 0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96696
Bug ID: 96696
Summary: Failure to optimize div+mul to mod+sub
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96695
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
PS: Very similar transformations can be done with alike patterns like `(x == 0)
&& (x <= y)`, which can be optimized to `x == 0`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96695
Bug ID: 96695
Summary: Failure to optimize combination of pointer comparison
to nullptr and another pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Alemagna ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #6)
> This does introduce an ABI incompatibility.
>
> I'm seeing this with kuduraft-1.8 compiled with GCC 10, giving linker errors
> from clang 9.0.20190721 like:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96694
Bug ID: 96694
Summary: Failure to optimize min/max pattern using two binary
nots to min/max pattern using one binary not
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96693
Bug ID: 96693
Summary: GCC produces incorrect code with -O2 for loops
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96692
Bug ID: 96692
Summary: Failure to optimize xor+or+xor to andnot+xor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96691
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
int f(int x)
{
return (~x & 123) ^ 321;
}
A very similar transformation can be done with this code, transforming it to
`return (x & 123) ^ 314;` (according to LLVM), and a similar transformation
should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96691
Bug ID: 96691
Summary: Failure to optimize not+or+xor with constants to
and+xor with bitwise not-ed constants
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
int f(int x)
{
return ~(x + 123);
}
A very similar optimization can be done with this, by converting this to
`return ~123 - x;` (and the constant can be swapped out with pretty much any
other constant h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96355
Robert Douglas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rwdougla at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83445
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Karzhenkov ---
r269667 concerns initializing an object from prvalue.
Here we have `Target` being initialized from lvalue if type `Source`.
What we can consider as being initialized from prvalue is the argument of co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fc49a5777943aab11e227136d00a836f28f12b2
commit r10-8639-g7fc49a5777943aab11e227136d00a836f28f12b2
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9125cf8c33b710c378bfb3c7e67ec2f9f1c523c9
commit r11-2747-g9125cf8c33b710c378bfb3c7e67ec2f9f1c523c9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b871301f09be7061904dc87880919d30e6afef8f
commit r11-2748-gb871301f09be7061904dc87880919d30e6afef8f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93028
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||itchka at compuserve dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe related to or same as PR93028, but that one is missing a test, so hard to
say.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77841
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem is probably that we're not doing the {"str_cst"} -> "str_cst"
unwrapping that reshape_init / cp_complete_array_type does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77841
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96687
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77841
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96686
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96687
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is PR 77841
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Bug ID: 96690
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in write_type since r10-6087
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96689
Bug ID: 96689
Summary: Segmentation fault when defaulting operator<=> on enum
er enum class
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c04bd60e56da399a441f73ebb687b5039b9cf3f
commit r11-2746-g3c04bd60e56da399a441f73ebb687b5039b9cf3f
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96686
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Yep, I agree that this should simply be rejected. I looked at your other
> patch for min/max, and think it can be committed. If you want to update
> that pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688
Bug ID: 96688
Summary: Failure to optimize shift-right+not of constant to
avoid not
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96665
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78257
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d367f5fcb579d21c3093cf5c464f5787fe584a1d
commit r11-2743-gd367f5fcb579d21c3093cf5c464f5787fe584a1d
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96665
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d367f5fcb579d21c3093cf5c464f5787fe584a1d
commit r11-2743-gd367f5fcb579d21c3093cf5c464f5787fe584a1d
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96670
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96670
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78257
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb04901d14f7749eb949092fd3dfcb6ca1958701
commit r11-2742-gbb04901d14f7749eb949092fd3dfcb6ca1958701
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96670
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb04901d14f7749eb949092fd3dfcb6ca1958701
commit r11-2742-gbb04901d14f7749eb949092fd3dfcb6ca1958701
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96687
Bug ID: 96687
Summary: new char[4]{"foo"} doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96687
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96686
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96686
Bug ID: 96686
Summary: MIN/MAX should reject character arguments of different
kind rather than ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96536
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96536
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf7b9330982165e051de0962c5bc231e2d1242d9
commit r8-10410-gbf7b9330982165e051de0962c5bc231e2d1242d9
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88780
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marietto from comment #6)
...
> In function ‘strncpy’,
> inlined from ‘xc_set_cpufreq_gov’ at xc_pm.c:308:5:
> /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string_fortified.h:106:10: error:
> ‘__builtin_str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96685
Bug ID: 96685
Summary: Failure to optimize not+sub to add+not
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96593
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96683
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96684
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96668
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> > integer, pointer :: p1 => null()
> > integer, pointer :: p1 => null()
> Module m looks wrong. Should the 2nd p1 be p2?
It should be "p2(:)"
(Thanks. I wrote it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96684
Bug ID: 96684
Summary: arm: MVE intrinsics / __ARM_undef presence in f16
vector max routine
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96677
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84796
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 96677 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96683
Bug ID: 96683
Summary: Arm: MVE ACLE intrinsics vst1q_{s8|u8|s16|u16} is not
supported by GCC.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84796
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Test from bug 96676.
template < typename T, typename... TYPES >
struct A {
template < TYPES... types >
void Get() { }
};
void f() {}
int main() {
A a;
a.Get<&f>();
}
But even r150013 ICEs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96536
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65f460db575eb004172e75b88f5a76724f04e255
commit r9-8813-g65f460db575eb004172e75b88f5a76724f04e255
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96680
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 49075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49075&action=edit
C testcase - de-macro-fied version sollve_vv's
5.0/declare_variant/test_declare_variant.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84796
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ivan.leonov.d at yandex dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96682
Bug ID: 96682
Summary: Arm: Wrong code generated for MVE with -O1 and above
optimization options.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96682
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96680
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
In the debugger, the first call to lto_fixup_prevailing_decls is for
main._omp_fn.0 and the second - and failing - one is for
(gdb) p debug_tree(t)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96681
Bug ID: 96681
Summary: Failure to optimize xor of comparisons with specific
constants to comparison of xor-ed of compared
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96665
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96680
Bug ID: 96680
Summary: [11 Regression][OpenMP][LTO] Declare variant + ICE in
lto_fixup_prevailing_decls, at lto/lto-common.c:2595
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96675
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The ICE with -std=c++14 started with r216750. It was fixed by r234442, but the
error appeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96668
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=96673
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61494
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88780
Marietto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marietto2008 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 49073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49073&action=edit
Testcase 2
I've managed to come up w/ a smaller testcase, partially reduced from
test/std/utilities/any/any.no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96536
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6342cee8801f191466b71116d004e8ccb812caaa
commit r10-8638-g6342cee8801f191466b71116d004e8ccb812caaa
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96536
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8104bb9dc2365d268ca93e43a24f42e8314fcc1
commit r11-2739-gf8104bb9dc2365d268ca93e43a24f42e8314fcc1
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Crocker from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > extern "C" functions can throw, so it would be wrong to unconditionally
> > assume they can't.
>
> True, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96623
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
We should have rejected "noexcept()".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96623
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60473
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #3 from David Crocker ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> extern "C" functions can throw, so it would be wrong to unconditionally
> assume they can't.
True, you can write an extern "C" function that throws. But does i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96558
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96298
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96298
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d850dec9b7bd02ef925def138894402038cca78d
commit r11-2737-gd850dec9b7bd02ef925def138894402038cca78d
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96638
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
