https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |preprocessor
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0, 12.4.0, 13.1.0
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117980
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Bisected down to r15-6052-g12de1942a0a673:
commit 12de1942a0a673f9f2f1c2bfce4279a666061ffc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Thu Aug 29 12:58:41 2024 -0400
c++: compile time evaluation of prvalues [P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117980
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Worked at `version 15.0.0 20241203` So this is a very recent regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117980
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Forgot the example:
// $ cat value.cc.cc
struct basic_string {
constexpr basic_string(basic_string &);
~basic_string();
};
struct StorePath {
basic_string baseName;
};
struct DerivedPathOpaque {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-10
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 59826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59826&action=edit
Fix for this PR
Found it :-)
It's just now regression testing.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117980
Bug ID: 117980
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in in
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr, at
cp/constexpr.cc:8950 on nix-2.25.2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117978
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117979
Bug ID: 117979
Summary: ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_loop_structure, at
cfgloop.cc:1742 at -Os and above
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117978
Bug ID: 117978
Summary: Optimise 128-bit-predicated SVE loads to Advanced SIMD
LDRs
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: aarch64-sve, misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117977
Bug ID: 117977
Summary: duplicated warnings output
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|[ 15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am suspecting this comes from a benchmark, do you have the name of the
benchmark?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59825&action=edit
Fix
Note this includes debugging still and no testcases. And has only done some
quick testing on the testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117961
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
git grep "\"[a-zA-Z0-9]*\"" i386 |grep scan-assemble
Can find more of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hp at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117954
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117975
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually there is a lot of them. You can find most by doing:
git grep "\"[a-zA-Z0-9]*\"" gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64 |grep
scan-assemble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117954
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0374e6771477553b3cc0c13f000f9e79aabd5020
commit r15-6071-g0374e6771477553b3cc0c13f000f9e79aabd5020
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117688
--- Comment #1 from Krister Walfridsson ---
Interestingly, the function is generated correctly if x is passed as a function
argument:
__attribute__ ((noipa)) void
foo2 (int8_t x)
{
int8_t minus;
_Bool overflow = __builtin_sub_overflow (x,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117976
Bug ID: 117976
Summary: ubsan false positive invoking pointer to derived
member with base class type
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117923
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117974
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
I can optimize it if I find the time. (Currently, I am busy with other
stuff).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117923
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Antoni Boucher :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:62fa2e434b60558a7c3b4c578fda744bde96
commit r15-6070-g62fa2e434b60558a7c3b4c578fda744bde96
Author: Antoni Boucher
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117974
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
We need to split all insns since some of them are not the ultimate RVV
instruction pattern that depend on VL/VTYPE.
And I don't think the vsetvli should be keep close VLE, instead, They are
redundant, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
--- Comment #4 from Rémi MARSAL ---
Thanks for pointing out the man page Jakub. This makes sense now.
Apologies about this report.
However, I don't understand why cpp doesn't raise an error because the input
file doesn't exist.
I recursively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117975
Bug ID: 117975
Summary: aarch64 scan-assmebly might have issues due to
matching directrory name
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117878
--- Comment #7 from Li Pan ---
This insn is introduced during reload when lra_constraints. There will be const
vector like:
(const_vector:V8QI [
(const_int 4 [0x4])
(const_int 12 [0xc])
(const_int 5 [0x5])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117961
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|inline-asm |
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117961
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Funny I was looking for a bug similar to this the other day when I saw a LLVM
pull request fixing a similar issue with directory names and their testsuite
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118736).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59823|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Confirmed. Hmm, phiprop2 can handle it though; that is
> -fdisable-tree-phiprop1 and see that phiprop2 handles it.
>
> I have not looked into why yet.
That is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114612
Dominik Gronkiewicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gronki at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103827
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No we didn't agree, because that's incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103827
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Jason, did you intend to close this as invalid? I think we agreed on the
original testcase being valid - we can assume that calls to
extern void foo (const std::string );
can assume the string argument being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 106294, which changed state.
Bug 106294 Summary: GCC accepts the undefined behavior operation in a constant
expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106294
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117963
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 117963, which changed state.
Bug 117963 Summary: Invalid enum values accepted in constexpr with
-fstrict-enums
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117963
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117974
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
So the way things seem to work here are in cprop_hardreg (just before vsetvl)
we have following:
(insn 44 18 47 4 (set (reg:DI 15 a5 [orig:139 _31 ] [139])
(unspec:DI [
(reg:DI 11 a1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
./configure BOOT_C{,XX}FLAGS="-O3" STAGE1_C{,XX}FLAGS="-O3"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117893
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117974
Bug ID: 117974
Summary: RISC-V: VSETVL hoisting across branch
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117733
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
"C" reproducer...
void bar(double);
void foo(double q[][5], int nx)
{
int i, l;
double dqnorm = 0.0;
for (i=0; i < nx; i++) {
for (l=0; l<5; l++) {
dqnorm = dqnorm + q[i][l]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117970
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117942
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk. I think I will backport the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117942
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be2062be9a629ae18a0c87c6b9cbe1885978417e
commit r15-6054-gbe2062be9a629ae18a0c87c6b9cbe1885978417e
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced it and started to work on it. I think the fix will be ready
during the next 2 days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
Heiko Eißfeldt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||heiko at hexco dot de
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671251.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671270.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107697
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I guess this is GCC 14 material at this point.
GCC 16 now :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like exceptions. That is for my reduced testcase adding -fno-exceptions
works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117965
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59823
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59823&action=edit
reduced testcase
Add -DWORKS and phiprop works.
That is the call before clamp is causing issues. (maybe vops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114542
--- Comment #4 from Heiko Eißfeldt ---
I submitted a patch to replace the atoi functions and add a new testcase.
BTW: the maximum allowed value was INT_MAX (your example used UINT_MAX).
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
so `cpp arg1 arg2` is the same as doing `gcc -xc -E arg1 -o arg2` So I suspect
this is expected behavior though I wonder if the driver could error out if arg1
does not exist before removing the output file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||80182
Component|preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114087
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117725
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
I cherry picked those and found some left overs which are handled by
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119248
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117973
Bug ID: 117973
Summary: [15 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r15-5646-gd1cf0d7a0f27fd for
non-LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT targets
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> so just the insn #s are different; oh because I accidently was using -g.
> Anyways what I said still applies here too.
Indeed, there is (insn 338) all the way d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
> Created attachment 59822 [details]
> .postreload and .late_combine2 dumps
>
> pr117938.c.323r.postreload
> pr117938.c.325r.late_combine2
338: {sp:DI=r13:DI+0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117972
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
PLUGIN_HEADERS should most likely include rtl-ssa/*.h, text-art/*.h,
sym-exec/*.h too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117972
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
headers=`echo $(sort $(PLUGIN_HEADERS)) $$(cd $(srcdir); echo *.h
*.def) | tr ' ' '\012' | sort -u`; \
Which was done in r5-7988-gb626318e125111 . Basically We install all *.{h,def}
files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 59822
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59822&action=edit
.postreload and .late_combine2 dumps
pr117938.c.323r.postreload
pr117938.c.325r.late_combine2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117941
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
> Is it then possible to have dwarf data on ARM in addition to the EABI defined
> unwind section?
I don't know, honesty, because I've not tried it. I'd be surprised if it worked
though, at least, not wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
>
> > It is the moving insn that is the issue.
> Please see _.325r.late_combine2 dump, there are *two* equal instruct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
>
> > It is the moving insn that is the issue.
> Please see _.325r.late_combine2 dump, there are *two* equal instructi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117972
Bug ID: 117972
Summary: Problems with plugin/include/errors.h
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: plugins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> It is the moving insn that is the issue.
Please see _.325r.late_combine2 dump, there are *two* equal instructions (as
reported in Comment #5). The compiler is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
trying to combine definition of r41 in:
443: r13:DI=ax:DI
into:
197: [r13:DI]=xmm2:V1TI
successfully matched this instruction to movv1ti_internal:
(set (mem:V1TI (reg/f:DI 0 ax [262]) [0 S16 A512])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> but in _.325r.late_combine dump, the same sequence got additional (insn 338)
_.325r.late_combine2 dump, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117941
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Othacehe ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #3)
> The Arm unwind section tables are defined by the Arm EABI; they only provide
> enough data for call-based exceptions to be unwound. It is not the same as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu.ojxq8 at dralias dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12de1942a0a673f9f2f1c2bfce4279a666061ffc
commit r15-6052-g12de1942a0a673f9f2f1c2bfce4279a666061ffc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is not a G++ regression, it looks like this code has never been accepted.
It's a library regression because we added a valid check which G++ can't
compile.
I will replace the check (it's redundant fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115349
--- Comment #3 from simon at pushface dot org ---
The attachment says, effectively,
V: IntVecs.Vector; -- of Positive
U : Positive;
begin
...
U := V'Reduce ("+", 0);
So if V is empty V’Reduce has to return 0 and the assignment will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117971
Bug ID: 117971
Summary: SRA improvements for g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr78687.C
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117969
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98142
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> What kind of change could make it the default? It would be non-conforming,
> so can't just be the default.
>
> Do you mean a -fclosed-enums flag that implie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the error is actually identifying a real bug: we can't create a global
std::span that stores a pointer to a temporary std::array. The pointer
immediately dangles.
The global std::span can never be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117970
--- Comment #1 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #0)
> Our postcommit ci is seeing the following regressions:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-7_b.C -std=c++2b (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-head
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
