https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qrzhang at gatech dot edu
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.2.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97821
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, the trunk fails even with -fno-tree-vectorize -O1 :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102997
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102997
>
> --- Comment #27 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||99128
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #15)
> accurate than with ranger. I also didn't realize that debug_ranger() didn't
> show me the same ranges I get from a call range_of_expr(). Live and learn I
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101636
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101636
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
> > I'm going to fix that (but it's spuriou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103139
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103150
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a few bugs filed about this same issue, See PR 101926 (this might be a
dup of one of those).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> $3 = void
> (gdb) n
> 326 max = wi::to_wide (vr.max ());
> (gdb) p range_type
> $4 = VR_RANGE
> (gdb) p debug_tree(vr.min())
>
> constant 1>
> $5 = void
> (gdb) p debug_tree(vr.max())
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103150
Bug ID: 103150
Summary: Structure return is not optimized on 32-bit targets
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103147
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103149
Bug ID: 103149
Summary: cc1: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an
'asm'
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103148
Bug ID: 103148
Summary: ICE in vect_analyze_loop, at tree-vect-loop.c:3155
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103147
Bug ID: 103147
Summary: ICE in register_tuple_type, at
config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1313
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51751|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |ICE: tree check in
|r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-09
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
--- Comment #4 from navidrahimi ---
This patch I attached will fix this problem and does include the test [1]. You
can follow the discussion in GCC-Patches here [1]. Although it seems I still
have problem to fix with MIME type of the patch in ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
navidrahimi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navidrahimi at microsoft dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103146
Bug ID: 103146
Summary: [12 Regression] libstdc++-v3 bootstrap failure on
32-bit BE powerpc since r12-4952
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51751 [details]
> Patch which fixes the C side of things
>
> This is the start of the patch which will fix this. It fixes C front-end.
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103145
Bug ID: 103145
Summary: False positive of -Wstringop-overread on gcc-11
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51751&action=edit
Patch which fixes the C side of things
This is the start of the patch which will fix this. It fixes C front-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103124
--- Comment #3 from HaoChen Gui ---
My solution is to split the move (from TI to V1TI) into one vsx_concat_v2di and
one V2DI to V1TI move. Thus, TI register 122 can be decomposed.
(insn 12 11 17 2 (set (reg:V1TI 121 [ b ])
(subreg:V1TI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93453
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103124
--- Comment #2 from HaoChen Gui ---
//lower-subreg.c
/* If this is a cast from one mode to another, where the modes
have the same size, and they are not tieable, then mark this
register as non-decomposable. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102831
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
If it's reliably reproducible (ideally with a cross), can you attach a
translation unit and the options to use to reproduce it with?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The easiest way to fixing this is to call verify_type_context even for the decl
with auto storage too and reject it then. I think I am going to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102690
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
It was backported here: g:19dcea67ac40cfdeb396fa264ebbe04fbe61fdc0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103144
Bug ID: 103144
Summary: vectorizer failed to recognize shift>>=1 in loop as
shift>>i
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102991
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102991
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c877d1c30ef1c5145817805ab944cddea61ad54
commit r11-9231-g0c877d1c30ef1c5145817805ab944cddea61ad54
Author: Xionghu Luo
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 99867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
The call is made from the strlen pass which still does apparently use EVRP. I
believe Aldy's been moving it away from it (some of his changes are still
pending) as have I, so things are still in flux. I do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> But it does not fix:
Sorry wrong bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
But it does not fix:
int
f ()
{
char a[12];
__SVInt8_t freq;
return __builtin_bcmp (&freq, &freq, 10);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102690
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Was the change that caused this backported to gcc 11? I am seeing the same
failures there now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99092
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Did the LLVM assembler get fixed?
not as of xcode 13.0 (I don't know if anyone filed a radar tho) - since the
problem was fixed on the branch, I guess no-one was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99092
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did the LLVM assembler get fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103143
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
Bug ID: 103143
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE due to infinite recursion in
pointer-query.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Macleod ---
As near as I can tell, you are calling debug_ranger () to see what ranger could
produce. That routine creates a new ranger and populates it, dumps out the
results, kills the ranger and returns.
When I pu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102831
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> I see the same error in Comment #3 on my powerpc64le-linux build, which
> breaks my bootstrap too.
Hmmm, if I manually execute the failing compile command, it I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102831
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103141
--- Comment #3 from Noah Andrews ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> you want:
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations"
>
> Not the no- version
That's correct, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's a reduced test case that reproduces the problem with an x86_64-linux GCC
in ILP32 mode:
$ cat pr103121.C && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -m32 pr103121.C
typedef typeof (sizeof 0) size_t;
struct tree_node {
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103138
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are more testcases also with valid code which would ICE when using
CLASS and PARAMETER, or are rejected. See also pr103137.
Another one:
program p
type t
end type
class(t), paramete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
After playing with the Intel compiler, which accepts the testcase, I start
to think the code could actually be valid F2018.
At least I cannot find text in the F2018 standard prohibiting PARAMETER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Okay, here's my question: when I call range_of_expr (vr, _4, stmt) with stmt
being 'grp_name_37 = __builtin_alloca (_4)' in BB 4, should I not expect the
result to be either VR_VARYING or [0, +INF]?
What I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #9)
> This is better, I think.
> You can send a patch review request to gcc-patch alias for more comments or
> approval.
Ok, if people are fine with this, I'll kick off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103102
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #8 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103142
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> Sorry, I've been having trouble with GDB and so I'm running two GDB sessions
> and I have been mixing output from both of them. I see the warning for the
> st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103142
Bug ID: 103142
Summary: [12 regression] gfortran.dg/vector_subscript_1.f90
fails at execution after r12-4976
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Sorry, I've been having trouble with GDB and so I'm running two GDB sessions
and I have been mixing output from both of them. I see the warning for the
store to *_23 in BB 13, not for BB 12. Here's a fresh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103141
--- Comment #1 from Noah Andrews ---
-Wno-deprecated also has this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103138
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103141
Bug ID: 103141
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored
"-Wno-deprecated-declarations" doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #9 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Nov 8, 2021, at 1:56 PM, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
>
> So this then?
This is better, I think.
You can send a patch review request to gcc-patch alias for more comments or
approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> The [1, 1] range comes from a call to qry->range_of_expr (vr, exp, stmt) in
> in get_size_range() in pointer-query.cc:
>
> (gdb)
> #7 0x0192c0df in str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103140
--- Comment #1 from Will Wray ---
Created attachment 51750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51750&action=edit
c++: __builtin_bit_cast To C array target type
Proposed patch, submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #7)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > The types are OPAQUE_TYPE.
> > [snip]
> > > So if I understand this c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
The [1, 1] range comes from a call to qry->range_of_expr (vr, exp, stmt) in in
get_size_range() in pointer-query.cc:
(gdb) p debug(gimple_bb(stmt))
[local count: 118111600]:
_4 = _1 + 1;
grp_name_37 = __bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103140
Bug ID: 103140
Summary: __builtin_bit_cast To C array target type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: patch
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > The types are OPAQUE_TYPE.
> [snip]
> > So if I understand this correctly and PR 98872 correctly. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #4)
> > with -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero, failed at the same place.
>
> You mean without the patch from Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #4)
> with -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero, failed at the same place.
You mean without the patch from Comment #3? With the patch, I don't see an ICE
using -ftrivial-auto-var-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103139
Bug ID: 103139
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:2573
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103138
Bug ID: 103138
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_cshift, at
fortran/simplify.c:2139
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137
Bug ID: 103137
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_transpose, at
fortran/simplify.c:8181
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103136
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103136
Bug ID: 103136
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at
optabs.c:7871
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103127
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The types are OPAQUE_TYPE.
[snip]
> So if I understand this correctly and PR 98872 correctly. We should not
> expand a DEFERRED_INIT for this type.
So something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102906
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103135
Bug ID: 103135
Summary: DW_AT_high_pc 0 offset for inlined functions with a
singled instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102906
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> > then size ivopts-4.o:
> >textdata bss dec hex filename
> > 38 0 0 38 26 ivopts-4.o
> > where the testcase exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 103122, which changed state.
Bug 103122 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in fill_block_cache, at
gimple-range-cache.cc:1277 with -O2 since r12-4866-gfc4076752067fb40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103122
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103122
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103122
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0cd653bd2559701da9cc4c9bf51f22bdd68623b5
commit r12-5006-g0cd653bd2559701da9cc4c9bf51f22bdd68623b5
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103117
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56665
--- Comment #9 from Bogdan Slusarczyk ---
Gushhh my fault, VALUE not VARIABLE :) all it is clear, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56665
--- Comment #8 from Bogdan Slusarczyk ---
(In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #6)
> This is not a GCC bug. The examples above have use after scope bug.
> Look at `assign_a` documentation
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_69_0/libs/spirit/cl
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
