https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #33 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #32)
> Do other targets want to follow suite for GCC 13 here?
I think the deviation for x86 and !x86 as-is will lead to further confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 01:09:22AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Unbelievable! I found the fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279
--- Comment #8 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> (In reply to Michael_S from comment #5)
> > Hi Thomas
> > Are you in or out?
>
> Depends a bit on what exactly you want to do, and if there is
> a chance that what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The NIST files themselves are too large to attach here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 54263
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54263&action=edit
Reference files used by script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 54262
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54262&action=edit
Script used. may need to be adjusted for ones envoronment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108390
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Unbelievable! I found the folder in my test directory. The NIST test suite
passes as before with my test script using the latest gfortran trunk rev 13.
I do some comparisons way back with some example outpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108390
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC considers this ambigous just like older versions of GCC:
(3): error C2668: 'f': ambiguous call to overloaded function
(2): note: could be 'int f(int (*)[2],T (*)[2])'
with
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108390
Bug ID: 108390
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2504 partial
ordering between array types
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279
--- Comment #7 from Michael_S ---
Either here or my yahoo e-mail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108362
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108327
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ceae3a66d3d9eb7c468f0a36f203c9e6b2b8a3e7
commit r13-5132-gceae3a66d3d9eb7c468f0a36f203c9e6b2b8a3e7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> Created attachment 54261 [details]
> Updated patch that honours the order of include use.
>
> This is V5 ...
>
> ... so here we collect the incoming search paths
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54220|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99531
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11 Regression]
|Perf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108279
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #5)
> Hi Thomas
> Are you in or out?
Depends a bit on what exactly you want to do, and if there is
a chance that what you want to do will be incorporated into gcc.
If yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd1f5373b8647a5da2f7f4b42282e676a4b04d98
commit r13-5128-gfd1f5373b8647a5da2f7f4b42282e676a4b04d98
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107508
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Another instance from Doom, this time where the enum is in a field lookup,
rather than an input parameter:
p_maputl.c: In function ‘P_BoxOnLineSide’:
p_maputl.c:151:8: warning: use of uninitialized value ‘p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #57 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f629f63d2d9d7ad2c43f8e451f0f6e32b5f4d06a
commit r13-5127-gf629f63d2d9d7ad2c43f8e451f0f6e32b5f4d06a
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108387
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Obvious caused by r13-5111-g98837d6e79dd27 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Similar thing seen in linuxdoom-1.10:
p_floor.c: In function ‘EV_BuildStairs’:
p_floor.c:503:22: warning: use of uninitialized value ‘speed’ [CWE-457]
[-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value]
503 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108136
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 54260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54260&action=edit
Add missing return statement to RTco_select
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> If it is __builtin_clear_padding only, I'll have a look...
After the __builtin_clear_padding is exposed and before the IPA passes, the IR
looks like:
l_26[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108136
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-12
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99794
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike ---
Hm, looks like it *IS* in 11. I was confused by the PR being open and the
version stating 11, thinking that it still wasn't applied. So the remaining
issues then are building on cygwin. But at least on a lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|error: conversion of|[13 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
--- Comment #13 from niXman ---
I figured out the building problem.
it seems to work as it should for symlink, but it doesn't work for hardlink.
will dive into docs...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108389
--- Comment #1 from eebssk1 at godaftwithebk dot pub ---
binutils version 2.39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108389
Bug ID: 108389
Summary: LTO(plugin) can not find lto-ed symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
David Blaikie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dblaikie at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108388
Bug ID: 108388
Summary: LRA generates RTL that violates constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107189
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Francois Dumont :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3c9148cad2f6f05ef9bc0be34b65a62a7e236dd
commit r13-5125-gb3c9148cad2f6f05ef9bc0be34b65a62a7e236dd
Author: François Dumont
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> I suspect a grep pattern could help guide the reduction.
> I tried a few patterns, but didn't make any real progress.
Using this pattern:
$ grep "func_23[^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49312
David Blaikie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dblaikie at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:50:37PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf from
/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-5122-20230112143021-gb073f2b098b-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20230112 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99794
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108386
Bug ID: 108386
Summary: Missed optimization with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on
x86
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #5)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> > Meanwhile, I try a bisection. Trying git hash g:0333892db367b2b9
>
> Seems good. Trying g:d3328df5f5c9908c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83652
--- Comment #2 from Sameer Varyani ---
Is there an update on this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> Meanwhile, I try a bisection. Trying git hash g:0333892db367b2b9
Seems good. Trying g:d3328df5f5c9908c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > The code is undefined ...
> >
> > func_23(l_26[1]);
> >
> > func_23(struct S0 p_24, struct S0 p_25)
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108385
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning is gone on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108385
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-std=c++20 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The code is undefined ...
>
> func_23(l_26[1]);
>
> func_23(struct S0 p_24, struct S0 p_25)
Interesting. It looks like the reduction has not preserved the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108252
--- Comment #7 from Илья Шипицин ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> (In reply to Илья Шипицин from comment #5)
> > thank you, David!
> >
> > I'll rerun haproxy check soon
>
> Note that I haven't yet fixed bug 108251, so I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108385
Bug ID: 108385
Summary: false positive -Wfree-nonheap-object
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108310
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
void f(float);
void g()
{
f(1.0);
}
conv.c: In function ‘g’:
conv.c:5:5: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘f’ as ‘float’ rather than ‘double’
due to prototype
5 | f(1.0);
| ^~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108383
--- Comment #1 from eebssk1 at godaftwithebk dot pub ---
It looks like my issue is caused by a extra inconspicuous flag
"-fdeclone-ctor-dtor". The program compiled succefully without it.
I do use this flag on other projects,never have such probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108310
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #0)
> So, I'm having trouble crafting a testcase that properly reproduces this
> issue, but...
...for reference, this is what I've got so far:
$ cat Wtraditional_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108252
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Илья Шипицин from comment #5)
> thank you, David!
>
> I'll rerun haproxy check soon
Note that I haven't yet fixed bug 108251, so I don't know how useful the
results will be to you :/
FWIW I'v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code seems to be:
struct S0 {
int f0;
short f1;
unsigned f2 : 7;
short f3
};
g_389;
static *func_23();
func_2() {
struct S0 l_26[] = {4, 5, 4, 6, 4, 5, 4, 6};
func_23(l_26[1]);
}
*fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108384
Bug ID: 108384
Summary: error: conversion of register to a different size in
‘view_convert_expr’
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems the difference between C and C++ is documented:
'-Winit-self (C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ only)'
Warn about uninitialized variables that are initialized with
themselves. Note this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108383
Bug ID: 108383
Summary: g++ ICE with -O3 and -flto on simple function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Fixed on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108225
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 54255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54255&action=edit
Disable C++11 mutex etc. when not supported by win32 threads
This patch would solve the problem for and ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*, |x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6610daa1cfb75b72500c22ae97988ec2a48b85c6
commit r13-5124-g6610daa1cfb75b72500c22ae97988ec2a48b85c6
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3df1a115be22caeab3ffe7afb12e71adb54ff132
commit r13-5123-g3df1a115be22caeab3ffe7afb12e71adb54ff132
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99412
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99412
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 99412, which changed state.
Bug 99412 Summary: s352 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang and not by gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99412
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99412
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b073f2b098ba7819450d6c14a0fb96cb1c09f242
commit r13-5122-gb073f2b098ba7819450d6c14a0fb96cb1c09f242
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108225
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #2)
> Please stop! Windows 95 support is extremely important
Looks like you can't even include if you set _WIN32_WINNT < 0x0600 so
this has NEVER worked, and I don't s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108382
Bug ID: 108382
Summary: Incorrect parsing when acc and omp coexist and
-fopenmp -fopenacc is used.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #28 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27)
> For GCC 13, I think it is important that we e.g. don't miscompile glibc
> libm, so
> the libm testsuite should be clean. PR107967 fixed some of the failures,
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107706
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108381
Bug ID: 108381
Summary: GCC Static Analyzer evaluates ( ((c)<=(b)) &&
((c)!=(b)) ) == false to be FALSE with the fact c >= b
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
"elide an overflow" should be probably "elide an overflow or division by zero"
I think,
because finite / 0.0 returns infinity and raises FE_DIVBYZERO rather than
FE_OVERFLOW,
even when it returns infinity f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108380
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
James Addison changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jay+g...@jp-hosting.net
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54224|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Branko Drevensek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||branko.drevensek at gmail dot
com
Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108380
Bug ID: 108380
Summary: function execution order
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107706
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ce55247a8bf32985a96ed63a7a92d36746723dc
commit r13-5118-g2ce55247a8bf32985a96ed63a7a92d36746723dc
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-12
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108374
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Hmm, but then the program is bogus, no? And a diagnostic warranted.
No.
> At least if it is well-defined to have a nullptr == pointer.
It's well defined,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108374
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #0)
> > std::weak_ptr weakPointer(pointer);
> >
> > [[maybe_unused]] const unsigned int aAttr = weakPointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108374
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #0)
> std::weak_ptr weakPointer(pointer);
>
> [[maybe_unused]] const unsigned int aAttr = weakPointer.lock()->_attr;
If pointer == nullptr then weakPoint
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
