https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71941
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 07:02:04 2016
New Revision: 238579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71941
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_genericize): For nested c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71941
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 07:13:42 2016
New Revision: 238580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71941
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_genericize): For nested c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937
--- Comment #12 from Jean-Michel Dubois ---
I tried with -O1 and the maximum memory I can allocate to VMWare, 6 Gb. gcc
still fails after 6 minutes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71953
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> looks like initialize_sanitizer_builtins needs to be called again. Maybe in
> asan_dynamic_init_call.
>
> And rather it looks like undefined sanitizer was fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jean-Michel Dubois from comment #12)
> I tried with -O1 and the maximum memory I can allocate to VMWare, 6 Gb. gcc
> still fails after 6 minutes.
Yes. gcc-4.9.3 and 5.4 need slightly less
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Jul 21 08:27:47 2016
New Revision: 238584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR target/59833
For Aurelien Jarno
On ARM soft-float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] x ^ y not |[6/7 Regression] x ^ y not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71953
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71955
Bug ID: 71955
Summary: Core dump and interesting behaviour while using
reference class members
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71955
Anand Kulkarni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anand312 at rediffmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
--- Comment #14 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71955
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71956
Bug ID: 71956
Summary: [i686][7 Regression] 176.gcc fails on 32 bits when
compiled with -march=core-avx2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71950
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This isn't easy to do. The exception is thrown in basic_ios::clear() when
setting the error flags, but the cause of the error is not known there. We
could look at errno, but not all such errors are caused b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71957
Bug ID: 71957
Summary: Invalid code generation with function static objects
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70722
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nadav Har'El from comment #10)
> There is nothing "holy" about glibc, and nothing "broken" about wanting to
> replace it (or, as Firefox did, only a part of it). Sure, the replacement
> needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70722
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The C standard has equivalent wording in 7.1.2:
If a file with the same name as one of the above < and > delimited sequences,
not
provided as part of the implementation, is placed in any of the standard p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
Bug ID: 71958
Summary: x86_64-w64-mingw32, ICE when '-mx32' is used
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Paul Wankadia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||junyer at google dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71854
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- tree-vect-stmts.c.jj4 2016-07-14 20:28:33.0 +0200
+++ tree-vect-stmts.c 2016-07-21 13:49:35.015011603 +0200
@@ -7763,7 +7763,17 @@ vectorizable_condition (gimple *stmt, gi
vec_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71683
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #4 from Paul Wankadia ---
FWIW, using a simplified struct, Compiler Explorer (gcc.godbolt.org) with GCC
6.1 throws a different error:
#include
struct State {
int i;
std::atomic next_[];
};
Compiler output — x86 gcc 6.1 (g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71948
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71957
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> On a second look the testcase looks invalid as it invokes a virtual function
> via C on an object of type C. Why do you think doing this is valid?
I try to g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
--- Comment #1 from niXman ---
s/But compiled ok/The same error occurs/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71661
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This to me looks like some transformation of a loop that doesn't properly
adjust the number of iterations. During vrp1 loop2 is:
loop_2 (header = 11, latch = 13, niter = c_23 + 1 <= 3 ? 2 - c_23 : 0,
upper_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 21 13:00:32 2016
New Revision: 238591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71947
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
--- Comment #5 from Tom Honermann ---
Nice, thanks!
Using gcc r238587, I get the times below for the examples in this report. All
cases are dramatically improved. Unless there is some other known issue not
captured in the discussion here, it l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Now the testcase is optimized at -O2 by VRP but still not at -O1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Boris Kolpackov from comment #24)
> Some more speculation/crazy ideas about the potential fix:
>
> If just throwing the new version and forgetting about the old one is an
> option, then perha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #24 from Boris Kolpackov ---
Some more speculation/crazy ideas about the potential fix:
If just throwing the new version and forgetting about the old one is an option,
then perhaps we could "de-inherit" old from std::exception and in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67565, which changed state.
Bug 67565 Summary: [concepts] Very slow compile time and high memory usage with
complex concept definitions, even if unused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67579
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67579, which changed state.
Bug 67579 Summary: [concepts] Memoization for constraint expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67579
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Paul Wankadia from comment #3)
> Is this likely to be the same issue even though std::atomic should have
> a trivial destructor for all T?
No, that's bug 71147, fixed in 7.0 and 6.x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71147
Paul Wankadia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||junyer at google dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #26 from Boris Kolpackov ---
> If breaking the old ABI was an option we wouldn't be in this situation in the
> first place.
By throwing the new version you are breaking the ABI. The point I was trying to
make is that maybe in this c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The C++ FE identifies such types with
>
> CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P (t) || CLASSTYPE_EMPTY_P (t)
>
> where only CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P is interesting to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71147
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
The test case from comment 4 on bug 70932 fails due to this bug. But looking
at the error in comment 3 more closely I see "unbekannte Feldgröße in »delete«"
which with some help from Google Translate does loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
To clarify/correct comment #5: the error in comment #4 is due to bug 71147, the
one in comment #3 ("unbekannte Feldgröße in »delete«") looks like it's the same
as in comment #0 and probably due to this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
--- Comment #7 from Paul Wankadia ---
Ahh. Thank you for clarifying. I will continue to watch this bug then. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71959
Bug ID: 71959
Summary: [OpenACC] #pragma acc parallel leads to segfault in
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-accel-nvptx-none-gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71953
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 16:17:58 2016
New Revision: 238596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/71953
* asan.c (asan_dynamic_init_call): Call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71953
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 16:18:46 2016
New Revision: 238597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/71953
* asan.c (asan_dynamic_init_call): Call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096
--- Comment #4 from Travis Vitek ---
I believe the underlying type of the unscoped enumeration `E' should be `int'.
According to 7.2 paragraph 7, the underlying type is
.. implementation-defined which integral type is used
as the underlying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71960
Bug ID: 71960
Summary: __glibcxx_assert and Debug Mode checks can't be used
in constexpr functions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71960
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Alternatively, compiler magic which allows the checks to be skipped when used
in a constant expression would allow us to support all valid code, at the
expense of not diagnosing misuses in constant expressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71945
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You also get undefined behaviour at 2bn objects when the signed _Atomic_word
overflows, and the weak count can also be forced to overflow. Doing so requires
allocating tens of GB of shared_ptr objects thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31190
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
Bug ID: 71961
Summary: [7 Regression] 178.galgel in SPEC CPU 2000 is
miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Bug ID: 71962
Summary: error: ‘((& x) != 0u)’ is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71953
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This fixes the v3 testsuite with asan, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71728
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 18:22:32 2016
New Revision: 238601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71728
* constexpr.c (potential_constant_expression_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71728
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 18:24:48 2016
New Revision: 238602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71728
* constexpr.c (potential_constant_expression_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.2.0, 7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
Summary|regression: mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Jul 21 19:11:26 2016
New Revision: 238606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
016-07-21 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/71876
* bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Jul 21 19:06:02 2016
New Revision: 238605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
016-07-21 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/71876
* ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71963
Bug ID: 71963
Summary: Showing incompatible type when types are same.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71756
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71630
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71274
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69223
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60779
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hasn't this been fixed by using the optimize attribute infrastructure for LTO
now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71964
Bug ID: 71964
Summary: Move constructor of std::set does not move allocator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
Norm Jacobs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||norm.jacobs at oracle dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:41:44 2016
New Revision: 238619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71913 - missing copy elision with new.
* call.c (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71274
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:45:48 2016
New Revision: 238623
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238623&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71274 - deprecated warning without use.
* decl2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:45:37 2016
New Revision: 238621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71913 - missing copy elision with new.
* call.c (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71630
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:45:43 2016
New Revision: 238622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71630 - extern variable template
* pt.c (instantia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:46:41 2016
New Revision: 238625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71913 - missing copy elision with new.
* call.c (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69223
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:45:54 2016
New Revision: 238624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69223 - ICE with deduced template return type.
* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71630
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:46:49 2016
New Revision: 238626
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71630 - extern variable template
* pt.c (instantia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69223
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:46:54 2016
New Revision: 238627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69223 - ICE with deduced template return type.
* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:51:07 2016
New Revision: 238628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71913 - missing copy elision with new.
* call.c (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69223
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:51:22 2016
New Revision: 238630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69223 - ICE with deduced template return type.
* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71630
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:51:15 2016
New Revision: 238629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71630 - extern variable template
* pt.c (instantia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71274
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] |[5/6 Regression] deprecated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69223
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
