https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
> If you want to play with new features, there's a flag to enable them already.
> Does -std=c++whatever actually support some new use case that you can't do
> today? Or just "I can't be bothered to decide, gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
To give another example where it might be useful: ICU often ends up cranking
the C++ standard its headers expect before its consumers have bumped it,
recently this was w/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116191
Bug ID: 116191
Summary: Avoid inlining in unlikely branches
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Build systems like autoconf currently hardcode a list of C++ and C standards
which has to be updated every so often (and often gets forgotten about).
autoconf at least will aggressively pick the latest one it kn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #7 from antto ---
honestly, this was just a semi-serious idea, and then some people on IRC
surprisingly said that they like it and encouraged me to submit it (and i was
surprised, but here it is, i submitted it)
a possible usecase i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116190
Bug ID: 116190
Summary: raised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow or erroneous
memory access with array of unbounded strings
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
* "dsg-message"
* "do-message"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
* Missing dg- prefix (e.g. "// { message }") or "{ require-effective* ... }"
* s/dg/do/, e.g. "{ do-do compile }"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113204
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> the non-presence of n{1,2}->lto_file_data represented as -1 makes whether
> non-presence is first dependent on the value of the order of the other.
>
That might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113204
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(My reluctance is because getting a proper set of C sources to reproduce it
seems to keep hiding from me.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113204
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113204
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> I've hit a similar ICE testing libbacktrace with LTO bootstrapped GCC on
> LoongArch:
I hit this today too.
Unfortunately, it seems that libbacktrace gets relinked (an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] |[15 regression]
|-fcompar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, GCC 13 also had the pre difference but we didn't start to compare debug
failure there either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115866
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the original testcase seems to invoke a similar issue in gcse too. But why
there was no difference previously I have no idea.
Without:
```
(insn # # # 2 (set (reg/f:SI 296)
(symbol_ref:SI ("_Z1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Possibly fixed by:
commit 11869b9c9eb8bcc8cb6a615141f522a447377324
Author: Gary V. Vaughan
Date: Sat Nov 26 11:06:35 2011 +0700
m4: fix logic error leading to -fno-rtti being added wrongly.
* m4/lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Hmm, for my reduced testcase, the first issue is in gcse (pre) and it
> started there in GCC 14.1.0 according to godbolt. So it looks like I reduced
> a differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116189
Bug ID: 116189
Summary: [14/15 Regression] compare debug failure at -O2 on sh
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compare-debug-failure
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, for my reduced testcase, the first issue is in gcse (pre) and it started
there in GCC 14.1.0 according to godbolt. So it looks like I reduced a
different compare debug issue as the original one is not t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110607
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58802&action=edit
Reduced testcase
`-fcompare-debug -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2 -gno-statement-frontiers` is
able to reproduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Bug 84402 depends on bug 109051, which changed state.
Bug 109051 Summary: Configure takes long time for multibuild of run-time
libraries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109051
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109051
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35199
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104626
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58798|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #29 from Sam James ---
csfore, erhard, could you test
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/zpioop6il_igm...@cowardly-lion.the-meissners.org/?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
glaubitz, could you check with gcc-14.2 or trunk? I have a feeling honza's IPA
fixes recently sort this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116188
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116188
Bug ID: 116188
Summary: Drop building libcody for stage1 for bootstraps
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116187
Bug ID: 116187
Summary: -Wuninitialized warnings in
libgrust/libproc_macro_internal/literal.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
--- Comment #13 from roland at gnu dot org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > OK.
> >
> > FWIW Clang seems to create two different sections called foo, one COMDAT and
> > one not.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116184
roland at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90151
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|554.roms_r regression on|[12/13/14/15 regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 116184 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116184
roland at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108087
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115917
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65264
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland at gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116186
Bug ID: 116186
Summary: the scalar cost for popcount is off for
-mcpu=neoverse-n2 (and generic-armv9-a)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116184
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
The underlying issue can be demonstrated with non-template inlines as well:
inline const char* foo [[gnu::section("strings"), gnu::used]] = "foo";
inline const char* bar [[gnu::section("strings"), gnu::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115656
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:241f710c851aa6a8627c3ddba1e126d8e503e1b0
commit r14-10545-g241f710c851aa6a8627c3ddba1e126d8e503e1b0
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115897
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37e54ffd2a0a18eec23c90bdf438c01a0393328a
commit r14-10547-g37e54ffd2a0a18eec23c90bdf438c01a0393328a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88313
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81db6857686c2d7932949afb948419a575bc0b3f
commit r14-10548-g81db6857686c2d7932949afb948419a575bc0b3f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59e3934346f4546d7ef4fc82d300644b52bcefb0
commit r14-10546-g59e3934346f4546d7ef4fc82d300644b52bcefb0
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115296
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e548a881a4540378151f6195e47e8413fe75a0d6
commit r14-10544-ge548a881a4540378151f6195e47e8413fe75a0d6
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112288
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1287b4abc67a915ef6b63fb0753a0bea41de47f1
commit r14-10543-g1287b4abc67a915ef6b63fb0753a0bea41de47f1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113860
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4b8db26de35239bd621aad9c0361f25d957122b
commit r15-2659-ge4b8db26de35239bd621aad9c0361f25d957122b
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
I think fixing 114855 will probably resolve this one too. Its a more
"managable" test case. I'm trying to have a look, but I am off next week so
it isn't imminent.
Meanwhile the "workaround" might be to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116148
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86e2dc89c5b8c9d9cca649a34a650e381a05b3a5
commit r15-2658-g86e2dc89c5b8c9d9cca649a34a650e381a05b3a5
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Thu Aug 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116185
Bug ID: 116185
Summary: [15 Regression] Comparison failure on sh4 due to debug
symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105238
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109334
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|14.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116184
Bug ID: 116184
Summary: section attributes in COMDAT groups use wrong group
name for multiple instances in same TU
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106375
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regreesion] Lowering|[13 regression] Lowering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104178
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.4.1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58715|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104626
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> Created attachment 58798 [details]
> Revised test case with careful precision and tolerance values.
>
> New suggested test case which passes on x86-64-linux.
O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116183
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65264
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104626
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 58798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58798&action=edit
Revised test case with careful precision and tolerance values.
New suggested test case which passes on x86-64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116183
Bug ID: 116183
Summary: -fcompare-debug broken with piped input
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113578
Edwin Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ewlu at rivosinc dot com
--- Comment #12 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
One other possible flaw in the test is comparison of floating point values. I
will tidy up this part with some tolerance.and post a new version of the test
here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116182
Bug ID: 116182
Summary: bootstrap-lto should set a small list of -Werror
options for LTO correctness
(-Werror=lto-type-mismatch,odr,strict-aliasing)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116181
Bug ID: 116181
Summary: -Wlto-type-mismatch warnings/errors during m2
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Ah, I see what I did wrong now with my sorting too. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116180
Bug ID: 116180
Summary: False positive -Wstringop-overread when calling
std::strlen on pointer to static constexpr member
std::array containing contents of a non-null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #5)
> Have you tried a LTO build? It can split large files.
>
> It's not incremental however (unless the recent patches for that go in)
I don't think it matters in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.5.0, 12.3.0, 13.2.0
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113578
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108619
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102958
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Fixing the underlying optimization issue might be nice, but I don't see any
> reason why std::char_traits::length can't simply use strlen. We'd
> only need t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116132
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed also on x86-64-linux.
I have not been able to see this failure on my system. I pushed a change to the
test case and do noy know if this fixed it or n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1729eb80489e6c8e03d7c9a072736350407c7f4
commit r15-2653-ge1729eb80489e6c8e03d7c9a072736350407c7f4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b8e5ed6cd0f3cfe7cdf93200e47c069fd101984
commit r15-2651-g8b8e5ed6cd0f3cfe7cdf93200e47c069fd101984
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99942
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6586b015f1211ccd6e3e89b44dcb2116347edf89
commit r15-2650-g6586b015f1211ccd6e3e89b44dcb2116347edf89
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to antto from comment #5)
> so maybe some kind of a rule could be made, for example:
> "if stable (the default -std) has gotten "old", and the current date has
> advanced several C++ versions for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #5 from antto ---
well, it's surely a blury subject, maybe some logic could be made up to make it
make some amount of sense
- afaiu currently the latest stable is 17(?)
- the year is 2024
- yet on the language side of things, c++26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116166
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> There's another PR where DOM shows up via ranger also at -O1 - does -O1 help
> here?
No. With -O2 it took 6 hours for that file to compile. With -O1 it is stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116033
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 only] RISC-V:|[14 only] RISC-V:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116149
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116149
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f15cd1802129454029f7fcc8ee3ddd56a86cdad8
commit r15-2649-gf15cd1802129454029f7fcc8ee3ddd56a86cdad8
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
--- Comment #3 from Arsen Arsenović ---
+1, 'latest' might be a bit of a footgun
> I would be happier with -std=c++experimental or possibly -std=c++next
or both, for latest released and latest draft standard revisions
1 - 100 of 333 matches
Mail list logo
