https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77489
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Jan 18 08:40:05 2017
New Revision: 244566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR77489 -- mangling of discriminator >= 1
libiberty:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #30 from Arnd Bergmann ---
This seems to fix the majority of the failures I have run into, but I still see
the ICE with both the 0x2F25F020 and 0xB0981CD0 builds, see comments 18 through
21.
Should I open a new report for those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Jan 18 08:49:11 2017
New Revision: 244567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR70182 -- missing "on" in mangling of unresolved operators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77489
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78860
--- Comment #3 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
In trunk, git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git, the problem
disappears after commit 76825907d9b0e20cbb572d0d70248a4ed332fb29
But the changes in that commit are not applicable to gcc-4.7.4
which we are ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78821
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Somewhat reduced:
namespace std {
template struct integral_constant {
static constexpr _Tp value = __v;
};
template struct conditional;
template struct __and_;
template
struct __and_<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79113
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79123
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79088
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
This alone regresses gcc.c-torture/execute/pr77766.c and
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr78856.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79126
Bug ID: 79126
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr77445-2.c scan-tree-dump
thread1 "Jumps threaded: 16"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79119
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79114
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression]|[6 Regression]
|std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79123
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
[Just thinking out loud here.]
Yeah. There's no correct range information available. For the argument to
alloca we have:
# RANGE ~[2305843009213693952, 16140901064495857663]
n_9 = (long unsigned int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79117
--- Comment #3 from Julian Taylor ---
using isinf is not correct as isinf(nan) == 0
why does isinf do the truncation on x87 and isfinite does not?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68384
Romain Lalaut changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain at quarkstudio dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78634
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Patch and discussion here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00212.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
Bug ID: 79127
Summary: [7 Regression] Error: invalid register for
.seh_savexmm in matmul_i4.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79117
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Julian Taylor from comment #3)
> using isinf is not correct as isinf(nan) == 0
> why does isinf do the truncation on x87 and isfinite does not?
Because isinf is expanded in a target-dependent part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79091
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 18 12:51:28 2017
New Revision: 244575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79091
* mangle.c (write_exception_spec): Check no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79126
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
I guess we can either add the interval or drop the assert. I basically
included it to make it clear in future that if the number of threads changes,
very likely it will also affect the number of profile mismat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79091
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79128
Bug ID: 79128
Summary: export unsafe-math-optimization cpp defintion
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129
Bug ID: 79129
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE with -fdebug-types-section starting
with r240578
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79130
Bug ID: 79130
Summary: [C++17] FI20 change vs. direct initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If this is indeed something that older versions of binutils don't handle and
latest binutils do, then we probably need to reduce the assembly into a small
testcase (or corresponding C) and include that in con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you please perhaps attach the assembly (so that we can find out if it is
reported in the avx, avx2 or avx512f routines (or all of them))?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79128
Julian Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 40534
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40534&action=edit
assembly
Here's the assembly.
AFAICS the issue is in matmul_i4_avx512f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1)
> Looks like the binutils on mingw is not able to handle AVX.
>
> I have to confess that I don't know a lot about binutil
> versions. Can you post the version tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43113
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> So, just to record some thoughts.
>
> There'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps the HAVE_AVX512F configure test is too simple for the SEH purposes.
I've tried:
typedef double __m512d __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (64)));
typedef double __m256d __attribute__ ((_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
Bug ID: 79131
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2213, big-endian ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79122
--- Comment #3 from Alan ---
I thought that might be the case but couldn't find a clear statement after a
fair bit of googling. Is there a 'limitations of gccgo' doc somewhere that
lists the unsupported features?
You can close this from my persp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79132
Bug ID: 79132
Summary: False positive for -Walloc-size-larger-than= with
-fsanitize=address aka. bootstrap-asan breakage
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1)
> > Looks like the binutils on mingw is not able to handle AVX.
> >
> > I have to confess that I don't know a lot abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Perhaps the HAVE_AVX512F configure test is too simple for the SEH purposes.
> I've tried:
> typedef double __m512d __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (64)))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #31 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It looks like you've already opened a new BZ. Thanks.
And yes, that's usually the preferred way, particularly if we're dealing with
multiple different testcases that aren't already confirmed to be the exa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79133
Bug ID: 79133
Summary: lambda capture shadowing parameter & decltype
confusion
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78698
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Wed Jan 18 15:48:54 2017
New Revision: 244579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-18 Matthias Klose
PR libobjc/78697
* configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78697
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Wed Jan 18 15:48:54 2017
New Revision: 244579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-18 Matthias Klose
PR libobjc/78697
* configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77489
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Jan 18 15:49:15 2017
New Revision: 244580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77489 -- Reorganize abi warning check
PR c++/7748
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11488
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|alphaev68-*-*, powerpc-*-* |alphaev68-*-*
--- Comment #14 from Pat Haug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40536&action=edit
gcc7-pr79127.patch
Untested patch that should make sure HAVE_AVX512F is not enabled if it will not
work properl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note I have no access to any kind of Windows, so can just bootstrap/regtest it
on Linux to make sure it hasn't regressed anything there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78698
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78697
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #15 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 18 16:06:31 2017
New Revision: 244581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
gcc/
* asan.c (get_translatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Note I have no access to any kind of Windows, so can just bootstrap/regtest
> it on Linux to make sure it hasn't regressed anything there.
I will test the patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] wrong code |[5 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79013
Bug 79013 depends on bug 78693, which changed state.
Bug 78693 Summary: [6 Regression] Bogus 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’'
error when having a dependent initializer and a nondependent one in the same
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Bug 79009 depends on bug 78693, which changed state.
Bug 78693 Summary: [6 Regression] Bogus 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’'
error when having a dependent initializer and a nondependent one in the same
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52442
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54237
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57270
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression: |string::find_last_of 3.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 18 16:44:27 2017
New Revision: 244582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78894 - ICE with class deduction and default arg
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64128
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64128
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
So, cxx_eval_bit_field_ref is trying to evaluate
BIT_FIELD_REF <*(struct basic_monad_storage *) this, 8, 8>
here. It first evaluates the struct expression which yields
{._storage={.D.2530={.D.2503={._value_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69321
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70727
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78420
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
There are two potential approaches:
(1) Add a warning, such as:
#if defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) && defined(__cplusplus) &&
!defined(__APPLE_ALTIVEC__)
#warning requires GNU extensions; use -std=gnu++
#endif
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68925
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 18 17:18:47 2017
New Revision: 244584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR68925 don't use thread_local static for stateless object
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64735
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafal at rawicki dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78875
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70530
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andyg1001 from comment #28)
> Erm, am I the first to notice that this "solution" is broken?
No, see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-09/msg00228.html
> The os_defines.h include that und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The original problem should be fixed long ago, because those functions use the
abi_tag now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 18 17:39:56 2017
New Revision: 244585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244585&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77416
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr77416.c Guard the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79130
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69301
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also "tmp" is not a reserved name!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42980
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase:
struct A { void foo (int &); };
struct B
{
A *bar ();
~B () { int a = 1; bar ()->foo (a); }
};
struct C { ~C (); B c; };
C::~C () {}
doesn't ICE.
On this testcase, the difference betwee
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
