https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53972
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I cannot get any compiler to accept sub1("foo", 2);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0, 8.5.0, 9.4.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janniksilvanus at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69348
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Friberg from comment #2)
> Another similar but more common (/less contrived) example, rejects-valid
> e.g. for GCC 10.1.0 for all C++ version (-std=c++X with X in {98, 11, 17,
> 2a/20}).
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69348
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quen...@huot-marchand.fr
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85127
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63296
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steve.lorimer at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53360
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems to be fixed in 11+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://wandbox.org/permlin |
|k/YuXR4WMYflBZTW4m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603
Bug 101603 depends on bug 90780, which changed state.
Bug 90780 Summary: references to pmf types mess up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90780
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||language.lawyer at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC loses ref-qualifiers|references to pmf types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 78802, which changed state.
Bug 78802 Summary: ICE with auto placeholder concept in
synthesize_implicit_template_parm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78802
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkeir at outlook dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78802
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89642
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC, ICC, clang and MSVC all reject this at -std=c++20 (or /std:c++latest for
MSVC).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68138
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The original testcase and the one in comment #2 started to work in GCC 11+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rcc.dark at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 82768, which changed state.
Bug 82768 Summary: ICE in synthesize_implicit_template_parm, at
cp/parser.c:39338
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82768
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gomboc at cs dot ucr.edu
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 78511, which changed state.
Bug 78511 Summary: ICE on using concept name as a "requires" parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78511
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at minijackson
dot 33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89085
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0, 10.3.0, 11.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jengelh at inai dot de
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0, 11.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC accepts both with GCC 10+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82204
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems fixed in GCC 11+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85612
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC, ICC, clang and MSVC all reject this code the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 81700, which changed state.
Bug 81700 Summary: Unresolved function type when taking address of operator()
of generic lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81700
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85514
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang started to accept this code in clang 5.0.0.
ICC started to accept it between 13 and 16.
MSVC started to accept it in v19.23 (19.23.28105.4).
So I think this one can be closed as invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66839
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
Bug ID: 101786
Summary: P1143R2 constinit implementation is incomplete
(joining with thread_local)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80651
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems fixed in GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> Fine by me.
>
> EDG agrees with GCC, but Clang accepts the original example. I guess they'll
> change when 1584 gets resolved.
clang started to reject in cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81051
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The vtable is not set until after the call of the constructor of B::B which is
after the call to f(this). When is the vtable supposed to be put in the this
object?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18296
Bug 18296 depends on bug 15538, which changed state.
Bug 15538 Summary: Misleading diagnostic for recursive template instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15538
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 86607, which changed state.
Bug 86607 Summary: constexpr function does not treat function pointers with
external linkage as constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86607
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86607
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77815
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603
Bug 101603 depends on bug 74744, which changed state.
Bug 74744 Summary: Fails to select overridden function when determined by
template parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74744
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70737
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69957
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101744
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > > ```
> > Just want to clarify that it's our developping lam version which is at
> > https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/intel/lam/master
>
> What can y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97819
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.1.0, 11.2.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80176
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 68386 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68386
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101785
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 99964 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > > Dup of bug 101785 really. There is no supported at all included.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > Dup of bug 101785 really. There is no supported at all included.
> >
> > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Dup of bug 101785 really. There is no supported at all included.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 101785 ***
but i am sure __NR_newfstatat do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101785
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 101784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is a bug in android headers.
>
> I really doubt anyone really cares enough about gcc support for android
> these days. I also really double anyone has really p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a bug in android headers.
I really doubt anyone really cares enough about gcc support for android these
days. I also really double anyone has really ported aarch64 android support to
gcc. Google mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101785
Bug ID: 101785
Summary: Android macro is not defined for aarch64-linux-android
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51264
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51264&action=edit
more errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51263
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51263&action=edit
log file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101784
Bug ID: 101784
Summary: __NR_newfstatat is not defined on
aarch64-linux-android
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we can probably do this to stop the test failing:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-pr67774.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-pr67774.C
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
// { dg-do compile { targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94356
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Hmm, the following is worse:
That looks like a separate issue. We have fold_comparison for GENERIC, and
match.pd has related patterns for integers, or for pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Assignee|redi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53660
--- Comment #2 from David Krauss ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't think this is a bug.
Right, the behavior looks correct.
As for a nested-name-specifier working in this context, it works if it's not
dependent. As for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101570
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101570
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ded2c2c068f6f2825474758cb03a05070a5837e8
commit r12-2749-gded2c2c068f6f2825474758cb03a05070a5837e8
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
1 - 100 of 299 matches
Mail list logo