https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109660
Bug ID: 109660
Summary: module path inconsistency
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE when building |[14 Regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(-O0 is fine, no need for optimisation.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109645
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109645
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54949
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54949&action=edit
Further reduced version of David's reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #31)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #24)
> > The warning is there for the above case really (and similar ones with struct
> > offsets). Where you originally have
NEW TASK DOCUMENT RECEIVED FOR Gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
You have 2 documents received from sa...@gcc.gnu.org
Description 3 Purchase Order/ Data Specifications.pdf
Pages 16 copies
To view Task, Please refer to the below and authenticate User to enable instant
access to all the documents on the g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109659
Bug ID: 109659
Summary: gcc_builtin module for gfortran
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #31 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #24)
> The warning is there for the above case really (and similar ones with struct
> offsets). Where you originally have a null pointer and have an offset from
> there; by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54947|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54947&action=edit
json-reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109658
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Going to try reduce now.
on=edit
json.ii.xz
Hit this when building aria2-1.36.0:
```
gcc (Gentoo 14.0.0. p, commit 28d2380b495e99daca3b01ca9e6a73a623a2f3d2)
14.0.0 20230427 (experimental) e86d01af7926b04e80d8f3e6409bc67dbff8a069
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:37:48AM +, adelson.oliveira at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
>
> --- Comment #8 from Adelson Oliveira ---
> Then I should have defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #8 from Adelson Oliveira ---
Then I should have defined the operations with double precision as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #7 from Adelson Oliveira ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> (In reply to Adelson Oliveira from comment #5)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> > > Replacing the first argument of
> > >
> > > FUNCTION MULTc4(v,m)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #5 from Adelson Oliveira ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Replacing the first argument of
>
> FUNCTION MULTc4(v,m)
> REAL,INTENT(IN) :: v(:)
>
> by
>
> complex, INTENT(IN) :: v(:)
>
> makes the code compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89018
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I will be submitting a patch for negative_max in the next couple of days.
I get:
_8 = MAX_EXPR ;
iftmp.0_1 = -_8;
After phiopt1 after my patches.
The other two are harder though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> Since GCC 11 which is correct now.
I confirm.
> That changed after r11-1504-g2e0f4a18bc978 for the improved minmax
> optimization.
The bug has been resolve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109656
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Those tests pass for me with a native powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu compiler on
gcc112.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109656
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100823
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> The triviality of special members is only fixed for GCC 13, but the other
> conformance bugs are fixed for 11.4 and 12.2
And 10.5 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108952
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
--- Comment #33 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c73f20e67ee8d268bf0dfd6732c1bd3e79e098ca
commit r10-11323-gc73f20e67ee8d268bf0dfd6732c1bd3e79e098ca
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108952
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd0179f31dfb9b009cb561d336f3f1c6fbdd4ceb
commit r10-11319-gbd0179f31dfb9b009cb561d336f3f1c6fbdd4ceb
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109064
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc75195ee8811d6c48f05727c170916c0adc227b
commit r10-11320-gcc75195ee8811d6c48f05727c170916c0adc227b
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100823
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d7de4c8fd9af68011e1fa7bc1d022db81d89594
commit r10-11317-g5d7de4c8fd9af68011e1fa7bc1d022db81d89594
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96830
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cf551240fcbc7a5e0f5ba07a9164e237e6c097b
commit r10-11316-g3cf551240fcbc7a5e0f5ba07a9164e237e6c097b
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109652
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109656
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #0)
> Do these test cases need to be updated?
They shouldn't need to be. The util/testsuite_random.h header was changed to
catch the new exception type that should be thro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109656
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109541
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(other PR fails with 10 etc even without -ftree-vectorize)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109541
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> With < 12, need -ftree-vectorize because the default changed. I can repro w/
> 10/11/12/13.
Calling it a 12 regression because it now fails by default while the other P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109541
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[12 regression] ICE in
|e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109657
Bug ID: 109657
Summary: (a ? -1 : 0) | b could be optimized better for aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82858
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79119
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So a couple of things need to happen really:
optimized now:
if (p_10 < q_12)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870913]:
_3 = _22 - _21;
_4 = _3 /[ex] 4;
iftmp.0_14 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
Chris Uzdavinis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109652
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Most likely caused by r14-295-gd89e23f27215fc .
bisecting it now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109656
Bug ID: 109656
Summary: [14 regression]
26_numerics/random/random_device/cons/token.cc fails
after r14-289-gf9412cedd6c0e7
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee1a8294754af16b00538b17414679c8d72a575b
commit r11-10660-gee1a8294754af16b00538b17414679c8d72a575b
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109064
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ca17b2b6be8e9bab2ee06636826d92604104475
commit r11-10657-g3ca17b2b6be8e9bab2ee06636826d92604104475
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108952
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6930165acd05c8eef88a99b9546742b108e0c84e
commit r11-10656-g6930165acd05c8eef88a99b9546742b108e0c84e
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109655
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
error ("redeclaration of %qD with different constraints",
TPARMS_PRIMARY_TEMPLATE (TREE_VALUE (decl_parms)));
break;
Looks like it is trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109655
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the full backtrace for the trunk:
‘
Segmentation fault
15 | void D::f()
| ^
0x125eddf crash_signal
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/toplev.cc:314
0x7f4dc2a54de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/d |
|vTbz8vcj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109655
Bug ID: 109655
Summary: Prior friend declaration causes "confused by earlier
errors, bailing out" with missing constraint on
out-of-class class template member definition
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> Untested patch:
Unfortunately this regresses on many testcases :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Yunrui Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109653
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change was completely intentional, previously for some of the well known
attribute names from random other namespaces we were handling them like the gnu
or standard ones, which is obviously wrong, we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc
index 02028f993fd..d70b4872162 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc
@@ -986,6 +986,14 @@ gfc_type_conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109654
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d572ffe2e05dbe44edaf19fa10ef2ca3ae8227c
commit r10-11315-g5d572ffe2e05dbe44edaf19fa10ef2ca3ae8227c
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104731
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d572ffe2e05dbe44edaf19fa10ef2ca3ae8227c
commit r10-11315-g5d572ffe2e05dbe44edaf19fa10ef2ca3ae8227c
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109654
Bug ID: 109654
Summary: unnecessary "cannot bind packed field to reference"
error when referenced type has aligned(1) attribute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109653
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, __has_cpp_attribute never returns 0 for unknown attributes
#if defined __has_cpp_attribute
# if __has_cpp_attribute (fakeattribute)
#error errorout
# endif
#endif
I thought it should.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109653
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109653
Bug ID: 109653
Summary: [[clang::fallthrough]] recognised up to g++ v12 not
not g++ v13
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109642
--- Comment #4 from Carlos Galvez ---
While I can do that on my own code, I cannot add that suppression on
third-party code, like Eigen (which I also get a lot of false positives in
similar code), even if I include the header via -isystem - sinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109645
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 54944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54944&action=edit
C++ source code
I can't reduce the code beyond this file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced:
template
void f() {
[](auto) {
[] class L>(L) { };
};
}
template void f();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109652
Bug ID: 109652
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE on valgrind-3.20.0: in
modify_expression, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:1866
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-27
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
--- Comment #3 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
Created attachment 54943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54943&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108759
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107850
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107850
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee5ab84e5f15b6d7c488bc371e4fb0304543844f
commit r12-9489-gee5ab84e5f15b6d7c488bc371e4fb0304543844f
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
x86_64 prints (with a simple: `#define uart_putc __builtin_putchar`):
```
0123456789
0 ??
1 X?
2 X?
3 XXX???
4 XXX???
5 X?
6 X?
7 XXX???
8 ??
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>preprocessed source as given by -freport-bug attached.
The attachment might have been too big, please try to compress it and try
again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109651
Bug ID: 109651
Summary: ICE in lookup_template_class
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
Bug ID: 109650
Summary: avr-gcc incorrect code with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109610
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109645
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
This commit
commit 95d4c0d2e6318aef88ba0bc607dfc1ec6b7a612f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Thu Mar 16 16:55:39 2023 -0400
c++: restore instantiate_decl assert
looks to be a hot candidate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109623
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109649
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105325
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40380
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Grr, I've just noticed that classes defined in a header with no file extension
do not get an implicit @headerfile, the way that classes defined in a foo.h
header do. See https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105325
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npiggin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108239
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
