https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119765
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is disable the test for windows abi. It is testing varargs setting
of eax for the number of use registers passed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119766
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119766
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
My reading of the documentation, that gcc is doing the correct thing here. You
requested that the types split into their own section and splitting it out to a
dwo file .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119755
--- Comment #5 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Created attachment 61091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61091&action=edit
pr119755_patch
Patch I'm testing for this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119766
Bug ID: 119766
Summary: -gsplit-dwarf and -fdebug-types-section leads to
multiple .debug_info.dwo sections
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119765
Bug ID: 119765
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/amd64-abi-9.c on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119764
Bug ID: 119764
Summary: noexcept lambdas do not have unused captures get
pruned
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 119763, which changed state.
Bug 119763 Summary: [modules] Declarations in extern "C++" incorrectly treated
as attached to named module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119763
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119763
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119755
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119761
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119761
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:424c6c88038ef13364e6e7e74e2389923d95396e
commit r15-9404-g424c6c88038ef13364e6e7e74e2389923d95396e
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sun A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119763
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119763
Bug ID: 119763
Summary: [modules] Declarations in extern "C++" incorrectly
treated as attached to named module
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119762
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nshead at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119762
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression[modules] |[modules] Error when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119762
Bug ID: 119762
Summary: [15 Regression[modules]
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751
--- Comment #10 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 61090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61090&action=edit
Proposed fix to remove gcc/m2/gm2-libs/COROUTINES.mod
The above patch removes gcc/m2/gm2-libs/COROUTINES.mod w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119302
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119761
Bug ID: 119761
Summary: d: importC cannot find input file
'__importc_builtins.d'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
--- Comment #27 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
*sorry I meant 60k bytes not lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
--- Comment #26 from Sam James ---
(In reply to mcccs from comment #25)
> I used creduce and some de-namespacing and brought it to about 60k lines, I
> hope to post the checkpoint soon
Thank you! Even partial reductions often help a lot (though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119760
Bug ID: 119760
Summary: GCC does not implement intrinsics for Vector
Multiply-by-10 Unsigned Quadword and varients
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96476
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We could seed it from largest integer/float vector-mode that has
> an add optab for example if the target does not override it.
Though I am curious how that wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109023
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119758
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119382
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115675
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61089
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61089&action=edit
Testcase from the testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109023
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a7b6668f8f79be8fa73982b8b0bde33c1d8c61f
commit r15-9403-g9a7b6668f8f79be8fa73982b8b0bde33c1d8c61f
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119758
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a03d014ec096b3e8c9941a6bf724d3daaeeb289
commit r15-9402-g8a03d014ec096b3e8c9941a6bf724d3daaeeb289
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87832
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117706
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:359b6128ade70f80cc850fdc8e3e90837ba1ff70
commit r15-9401-g359b6128ade70f80cc850fdc8e3e90837ba1ff70
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Interestingly PR 48618 has a slightly different interpretation of the standard.
I will be checking the 2023 to see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117706
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Running it manually, it looks like it still fails on arm indeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] |[15 regression]
|gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117600
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Krister
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110992
Bug 110992 depends on bug 119471, which changed state.
Bug 119471 Summary: (a * b) != 0 then we know that both a!=0 & b != 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119471
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 119471, which changed state.
Bug 119471 Summary: (a * b) != 0 then we know that both a!=0 & b != 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119471
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7bccec33beece4a46bc1b20ed375e803e97aa88
commit r15-9400-ge7bccec33beece4a46bc1b20ed375e803e97aa88
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Krister
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like only can hit on riscv due to the only one I know of that has gather
support it seems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu |riscv*-unknown-linux-gnu
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> -O2 -fno-vect-cost-model -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b fails
`-O2 -fno-vect-cost-model -march=rv64gcv ` is enough to get it to fail. That is
zvl256b is not needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-12
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61087|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61087
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61087&action=edit
No include testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119759
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'm not sure why it's even BSD to begin with. I did try to ask on the ML but
didn't get an answer.
Besides, if it's part of GCC, the whole thing is GPL anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119759
Bug ID: 119759
Summary: LICENSE file in gcc/cobol
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm sorry, I don't understand how to get the information from the recent
changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/?id=0562e17bd04b65aebff4721db05631b9f34af146
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119758
Bug ID: 119758
Summary: d: -fonly= argument only matches when including full
relative path to the input file
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119729
--- Comment #6 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
I haven't been given a sourceware account, I can't file a bug on sourceware.
Maybe we can do it for GCC only and if they agree with it in the future they
can change it:
Updated patch:
+if test $srcdi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Zbigniew from comment #8)
That sounds like it belongs in a new bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751
--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew ---
I'd like also to note there's also a need to take better care about the docs;
for example: I tried a code snippet from
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gm2/Assembly-language.html („2.17 Interface to
assembly langua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
If I increase the limits (or reduce N) enough that we get through the whole
evaluation, constant-evaluation still fails right at the end because the result
refers to the result of operator new and we don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116242
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106618
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
-O2 -fno-vect-cost-model -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|RISC-V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119757
Bug ID: 119757
Summary: RISC-V: ICE in operator[], at vec.h:910
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97585
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:342f1663bfb0e662f12c035c922d72166be9dd22
commit r15-9399-g342f1663bfb0e662f12c035c922d72166be9dd22
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97585
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97585
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Clang shows the same behavior, taking a long time to give up and do dynamic
initialization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> r13-6421 just makes us use mce_true and mce_uknown during trial constant
> evaluation of x's initialization, so my guess is before that commit the
> evaluation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119755
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sorry for the slightly confused report, I think what I pasted here wasn't quite
what I was testing (e.g. the command has `-x c++ -` but I said to compile a
file).
Thanks for figuring out what I actually m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119755
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> The __uninitialized_default_n_1 specialization assumes that we can use
> std::fill_n to assign to objects outside their lifetime. I don't think
> that's vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119755
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||103524
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119729
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to mcccs from comment #4)
> Suggested patch:
>
> +if test $srcdir = . ; then
> + AC_MSG_ERROR([building in the top level project directory is not
> supported. Please change the current directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93010
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-12
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119727
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Let's consider backporting this one after some time on trunk? It'd help us a
lot with user reports and would mean we can default-enable -freport-bug
downstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93010
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Martin, just to check, did you want to confirm this (it's still UNCONFIRMED) or
just add yourself to CC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119756
Bug ID: 119756
Summary: Error when reading source from stdin and compiling
modules: cc1plus: fatal error: stdout: No such file or
directory
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119755
Bug ID: 119755
Summary: type_traits:828:11: fatal error: failed to load
pendings for 'std::__is_one_of'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew ---
I'd like to stress it: presently these error messages (I mean without '-fiso'
option) look like compiler was malfunctioning:
coex.mod:8:24: error: In program module 'CoEx': unknown symbol 'COROUTINE'
8 | FRO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew ---
Indeed I confirm 'gm2 -fiso coex.mod -o coex' works in case of GCC 14.2.0. Yes,
the error message could be a bit more specific, if it's feasible.
In case of 12.2.0 there's still an error (below) — but I assume it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119751
--- Comment #5 from Gaius Mulley ---
Thanks for the report.
[As an aside gm2 from GCC-12 has a completely different linking mechanism to
gm2 GCC-14.2]
The file gcc/m2/gm2-libs/COROUTINES.def is a definition for "C" and thus has no
accompanying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah no, it looks like GCC only emits a line in that format for the main source
file, not for the included headers. So maybe GCC could just emit one extra
line, and not remove anything from the current outpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119722
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119722
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f9dfb94eab1ab1bbf9a2b5e20d1f61e36516063
commit r15-9397-g3f9dfb94eab1ab1bbf9a2b5e20d1f61e36516063
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119727
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b2ceb421f045ee8b39d7941f39f1e9a67217583
commit r15-9398-g8b2ceb421f045ee8b39d7941f39f1e9a67217583
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e91bba6d53899689b00bd0c995b35f6586fcacd
commit r15-9396-g7e91bba6d53899689b00bd0c995b35f6586fcacd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0562e17bd04b65aebff4721db05631b9f34af146
commit r15-9395-g0562e17bd04b65aebff4721db05631b9f34af146
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #6 from Bogdan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Bogdan from comment #2)
> > GCC does use the options specified in the standard.
>
> I think it would be more accurate to say that the standard specifies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119754
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119754
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC fails to diagnose it for the same reason that it fails to diagnose this:
#include
consteval bool f()
{
int* p = std::allocator().allocate(1);
*p = 99;
std::allocator().deallocate(p, 1);
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bogdan from comment #2)
> GCC does use the options specified in the standard.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the standard specifies the
options that GCC (and traditional UNIX c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119754
Bug ID: 119754
Summary: std::uninitialized_value_construct does not begin
lifetime of trivial types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
POSIX is talking about the 'c17' utility, not a command called 'gcc'. I don't
think GCC claims to be equivalent to 'c17'.
Any 'c99' or 'c17' utility you have is not part of upstream GCC but is
installed b
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo