https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119696
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Steefel ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I am 99% sure this was a fix and the warning is correct now vs what it was
> > before and not being hidden.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119696
Bug ID: 119696
Summary: Visibility warning when using a
pointer-to-member-function to a hidden member method
as a template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110648
Bug ID: 110648
Summary: Missed optimization for small returned optional leads
to redundant memory accesses
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107708
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Steefel ---
Ok. If passing arguments to a constructor function is explicitly undefined, and
gcc is willing to optimize based on that, should it be documented in the
constructor attribute docs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107708
Bug ID: 107708
Summary: LTO causes gnu::constructor functions to not be called
with correct arguments if there is more than one
constructor
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107597
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Steefel ---
Address sanitizer is the one that flags it.
This is the code I used to reproduce the failure.
test.h:
class NonTemplated {
static inline int x;
public:
void doFoo() {
x++;
}
};
int fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107597
Bug ID: 107597
Summary: LTO causes static inline variables to get a
non-uniqued global symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107163
Bug ID: 107163
Summary: Compile time regression when using templated base
classes, virtual method, and Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
