https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120320
Bug ID: 120320
Summary: g++ freezes forever
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
--- Comment #16 from Paul Thomas ---
> Hi Paul, I did not realize that you were working on import.
> Are you aware of
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
Hi Steve,
No, I wasn't aware of this PR but should have been. I wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120319
Bug ID: 120319
Summary: Unexpected number of branch outcomes and line coverage
for C++ programs
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #15 from Bogdan ---
People can still comment, it's part of the process. But in a case like this I
would say that it is safe to assume this proposal will stick. It literally just
allows to optionally add flags, which current already i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120275
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61453&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120275
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced with only one header:
```
#include
int main()
{
decltype(auto) values = {1, 2, 3, 4};
values.size()
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120318
Bug ID: 120318
Summary: Module deduced return type error.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.1.0, 11.2.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-17
Summary|internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120274
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61451&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120274
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61449|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61449&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
--- Comment #2 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105228
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note starting in GCC 13 the ICE changes to:
:5:15: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree that contains
'decl minimal' structure, have 'error_mark' in decl_internal_context_p, at
cp/tree.cc:3880
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120314
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61448
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61448&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure this is valid to with documentated const definition.
const does not mean `(arg0 != arg1)` -> `f(arg0) != f(arg1)` and even if you
have `arg0 == g(f(arg0))` as an assumption, that does not mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Kael Franco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61446|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Bug ID: 120317
Summary: Missed DCE with __attribute__((const)) bijection
function
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119887
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-16
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120314
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing. It is taking longer because I don't want to run into any other
unrelated issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #22 from James K. Lowden ---
I removed use of glob(3) entirely. The code is actually simpler because there
never was any wildcard; we just iterate over variations on the name. I also
converted all stdio.h to cstdio, etc, for all suc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
I was not able to reproduce this on c8000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96233
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
gcc_assert (cur_cfa->reg == XEXP (src, 0));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120316
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* Saving a register in a register. */
gcc_assert (!fixed_regs [REGNO (dest)]
/* For the SPARC and its register window. */
||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120316
Bug ID: 120316
Summary: GCC-15.1.0 for Target RX: internal compiler error: in
dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr, at dwarf2cfi.cc:1854
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
--- Comment #3 from Nils Gladitz ---
Yes sorry I should have clarified.
I use the following before running the binaries:
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gcc-15.1.0/lib64
ldd correspondingly confirms:
libstdc++.so.6 => /opt/gcc-15.1.0/lib64/libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Wait I read that incorrectly.
That which libstdc++ shared library is being loaded?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I got undefined behavior (segfault, missing output or exceptions) when using a
>gcc 14 compiled library with a gcc 15 compiled executable.
Forward compatibility is not guaranteed; only backwards.
Does G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
Bug ID: 120315
Summary: std::format gcc 14 / 15 interop issue
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin ---
I was able to reproduce this on c8000. Maybe this is a qemu issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does anybody know why there is the following comment preceding the suspcious
block:
/* Possibly return complex numbers by reference for g77 compatibility.
We don't do this for calls to in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > > > This fixes the reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > > This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Isn't there a 30 day period for comments?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90
> > still fails here.
>
> Which m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90
> still fails here.
Which means there are many more intrinsics here that need this treatment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Good point. Tentative patch which excepts (d)conjg:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-types.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-types.cc
> index f8980754685..e1e4f16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> > I wonder why gfc_return_by_reference is not returning true here because I
> > think that would be idea here.
>
> Goo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> I wonder why gfc_return_by_reference is not returning true here because I
> think that would be idea here.
Good point. Tentative patch which excep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:265fdb3fa91346f1be40111a9f3e8a0838f7d7fd
commit r16-704-g265fdb3fa91346f1be40111a9f3e8a0838f7d7fd
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0417a630811404c2362060b7e15f99e5a4a0d76a
commit r16-703-g0417a630811404c2362060b7e15f99e5a4a0d76a
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc501cb0dc857663f7fa762f3dbf0ae60973d2c3
commit r16-702-gdc501cb0dc857663f7fa762f3dbf0ae60973d2c3
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
--- Comment #2 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
r16-101-g132d01d96ea9d6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > Can't be done for the f2c functions.
>
> libgfortran/intrinsics/f2c_specifics.F90 has:
>
> subroutine _gfortran_f2c_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120302
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #13 from Bogdan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> Suspending while OP's posix submission is processed:
> https://www.austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1925
I forgot to report back here after opening tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120313
Bug ID: 120313
Summary: nternal compiler error: in move_for_stack_reg, at
reg-stack.cc:1199 since 4.7.1 using -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119810
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120313
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Keywords|
r: mario.rodriguezb1 at um dot es
Target Milestone: ---
ICEs on:
```
#include
template
struct std::integral_constant
{
};
```
Stack dump
```
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20250516/include/c++/16.0.0/type_traits:94:28:
internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree that contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers ---
I agree that it's best not to support legacy __float128 for new architectures;
if there are any remaining issues with libgcobol using long double / _Float128,
those should be fixed instead.
float128-mul-u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh I think MSVC is the only one which rejects this for the correct reason.
And I think libc++'s concept define is incorrect too:
take:
```
#include
struct S{
static constexpr auto t = std::copy_construc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115940
MARIO RODRIGUEZ BEJAR changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.rodriguezb1 at um dot es
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.rodriguezb1 at um dot es
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> So clang accepts it also when using libstdc++. when using libc++ clang
> rejects it due to the type trait __is_nothrow_destructible being used with
> an incompl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So clang accepts it also when using libstdc++. when using libc++ clang rejects
it due to the type trait __is_nothrow_destructible being used with an
incomplete type.
Simplified testcase:
```
#include
str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120312
Bug ID: 120312
Summary: internal compiler error: error reporting routines
re-entered. in build_array_type_1 since 4.7.1 until
trunk
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
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=118603
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dca6f3534d2b6c52cecc770c40b204fb5e4a12b3
commit r16-694-gdca6f3534d2b6c52cecc770c40b204fb5e4a12b3
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120310
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess one case is when tree DSE removes all stores to some automatic
addressable variable, in that case it would be nice to populate debug stmts to
all those removed locs and state what values it had there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65909
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120311
Bug ID: 120311
Summary: internal compiler error: in lookup_base, at
cp/search.cc:251
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120310
Bug ID: 120310
Summary: Missing location for initially addressable variable
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120170
Bug 120170 depends on bug 65909, which changed state.
Bug 65909 Summary: check_v3_target_namedlocale blows up on targets that don't
support command-line arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65909
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120309
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.rodriguezb1 at um dot es
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120295
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120309
Bug ID: 120309
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault in
groktypename since gcc 15.1
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> Created attachment 61442 [details]
> '0001-TYPE_EMPTY_P-vs.-code-offloading-PR120308.patch'
>
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > It looks lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But of course then it needs to be mangled differently from long double and
_Float128 too.
Itanium ABI documents e for long double, g for __float128 and DF128_ for
_Float128,
not really sure if g isn't alread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120299
--- Comment #13 from Tymi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> (In reply to Tymi from comment #4)
> > Why not check for __clang__ and fallback to a compatible solution then?
>
> Because that should only ever be a last resort. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> > * I initially tried aliasing __float128 to _Float128, but that broke the
> > libstdc++ build:
>
> Libstdc++ co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> In C++ the _FloatN types have special rules that prevent some implicit
> conversions, which would break existing code that uses __float128 and
> expects it t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> * I initially tried aliasing __float128 to _Float128, but that broke the
> libstdc++ build:
Libstdc++ could be changed to handle it, but I don't think we want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96710
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It looks like TYPE_EMPTY_P is only used during RTL expansion for ABI purposes,
so computing it during layout_type is premature as shown here.
I would suggest to simply re-compute it at offload stream-in ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65909
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c07ba5398be194cc390934ae159f7941890bd848
commit r16-682-gc07ba5398be194cc390934ae159f7941890bd848
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
Bug ID: 120308
Summary: 'TYPE_EMPTY_P' vs. code offloading
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI, openacc, openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems clearly undefined nonsense, so what difference does it make whether
it compiles?
copy_constructible depends on an incomplete type, for a start.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96710
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we should try to do this for GCC 16, so we don't have ODR violations
between -std=c++20 and -std=gnu++20 for anything that depends on
iterator_traits>>::iterator_category
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
