https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80620
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simplified testcase (for -O3):
long long int a = -465274079317386463LL;
int b = 856872806;
int c = -1940894202;
int d = 1718449211;
int e = -392681565;
unsigned long long int f = 13521452247506316486ULL;
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31130
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 4 07:29:55 2017
New Revision: 247578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/31130
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, it is a regression in between r247445 and r247508, I strongly suspect
r247497.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80620
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|7.0.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80593
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The set1 == 0 stuff has been added in r136679.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at pfeifer dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|8ice in is_gimple_reg_type |[8 Regression] ICE in
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, cddce leaves us with free (_11) and the def of _11 removed. _11 was
Deleting LHS of call: _11 = strdup (&d);
so caused by
2017-04-29 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR tree-optimization/79697
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 4 07:54:59 2017
New Revision: 247579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Replace absolute line numbers in gcc.target/i386
2017-05-04 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 4 07:55:11 2017
New Revision: 247580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Replace absolute line numbers in g++.dg/warn
2017-05-04 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
106 testcases remaining.
[ Or 94, if we ignore i386/avx-* (see PR80606). ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80620
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ugh. This is really another latent issue with PRE and range-info. When
PHI-translating {bit_and_expr,a.12_17,4081116982543369} when valueizing
a.12_17 we end up with a leader for a.12_17 as {nop_expr,a.6_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69460
--- Comment #6 from strntydog at gmail dot com ---
I have built GCC 7.1.0 and have tested this optimization bug against that. It
persists. Further, the new target cortx-m23 is affected by the bug, exactly
the same as Cortex M0/M0+ and M1
The ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80612
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu May 4 10:35:58 2017
New Revision: 247586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80612
* calls.c (get_size_range):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80612
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE in |[7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80614
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80614
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Bisection points to r241958 but that is nonsense, so I suspect r241944.
Yes that would have been my guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80624
Bug ID: 80624
Summary: char_traits::eof() doesn't meet requirements
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80624
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
--- Comment #7 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 41313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41313&action=edit
untested fix
Hi,
The issue can be reproduced with following test-case:
char f(void)
{
cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
Bug ID: 80625
Summary: gcc fails to notice strdup does not modify it's
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
Bug ID: 80626
Summary: Ada x32 multilib build failure for a-cfinve.ads
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #1 from Steven Noonan ---
I configured with these flags, if they're needed for repro:
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --mandir=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Bug ID: 80627
Summary: The Dart is crashing when glibc is compiled with arch
armv7-a
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #2 from S. Davis Herring ---
So sorry. For whatever reason, copy/paste works for me thence...
#include
#include
#include
struct A { // vaguely unique_ptr-like
void *p;
A(A &&a) : p(a.release()) {}
~A() {i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #3 from S. Davis Herring ---
Created attachment 41314
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41314&action=edit
bad assembly test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
s might be a global variable, that foo modifies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
MEM[(void * &)a_2(D)] = 0B;
MEM[(void * &)b_3(D)] = 0B;
_7 = MEM[(void * &)a_2(D)];
Indeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #2 from Steven Noonan ---
It looks like this is just the first of several files with that build issue. If
I build with 'make -k' I see several others fail with the same warning, e.g.:
/home/steven/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-build/./gcc/xgc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
The simplest fix is the following, but I'll move the whole test a bit
earlier in a patch to the mailing list:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index 1606573aead..79ca1666c15 100644
--- a/gcc/tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
C testcase:
int foo (int *p, int *q)
{
*p = 1;
*q = 1;
return *p;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah indeed, sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80628
Bug ID: 80628
Summary: gcc 7.1.0 produces duplicate entries in
.debug_gnu_pubtypes table
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80629
Bug ID: 80629
Summary: Missing .loc for a function in the presence of -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80629
--- Comment #1 from Matt Godbolt ---
This bug is noticeable in Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/g/scFj7A for
example; the function is not colourised as CE uses the .locs to track how the
source lines map to asm. One can also see how the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80554
--- Comment #3 from Tamas Bela Feher ---
Dear Dominique,
Thank you for looking into the problem.
> Why do you want to use such constructs?
I was refactoring and splitting large modules into submodules when I
accidentally run into this problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
--- Comment #12 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #11)
> While reducing PR 78290, I found another example giving a similar traceback:
>
> % gfc-trunk gfcbug136.f90
[...]
While checking the status of the example in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80620
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Now needs sth before r247596 to reproduce.
The whole
PRE_EXPR_NARY (expr) = newnary;
constant = fully_constant_expression (expr);
PRE_EXPR_NARY (expr) = nary;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80618
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yup, you were right.
Compiling with r247543:
seurer@genoa:~/gcc/build/gcc-test$ /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80587
--- Comment #1 from jas...@3db-labs.com ---
I neglected to include the preprocessed source file. It is too large to attach
here, so I posted it at:
https://gist.github.com/otherjason/9f50d3f36207ea4b40bb805f6c710304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
SztfG at yandex dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||SztfG at yandex dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> The simplest fix is the following, but I'll move the whole test a bit
> earlier in a patch to the mailing list:
Which is now posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70071
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3)
The patch in comment #3 regtests cleanly on i686-pc-linux-gnu
and has been posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-05/msg00010.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, will do (probably next week after things hopefully unstack a bit). Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #7 from S. Davis Herring ---
We can extend the C test case (thanks for that) with a shared, non-constant
value (and more savings by having dead code as in the original C++ example):
void foo(int *p,int *q,int x) {
*q=*p=x;
if(*p!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80622
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 4 16:19:20 2017
New Revision: 247604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 80622] Treat const pools as initialized in SRA
2017-05-04 Martin J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
tomas_paukrt at conel dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #15 from Vincent ---
Still there in 7.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80280
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu May 4 17:40:05 2017
New Revision: 247607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/80280 - Missing closing quote (%>) c/semantics.c and
c/c-ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
--- Comment #8 from coypu ---
Created attachment 41317
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41317&action=edit
Unbreak NetBSD following r243219
This patch works for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80630
Bug ID: 80630
Summary: gcc fails to compile constexpr with -O0/-O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80630
Vsevolod Livinskiy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to coypu from comment #8)
> Created attachment 41317 [details]
> Unbreak NetBSD following r243219
>
> This patch works for me.
This may break Linux. You may want to investigate if this approach:
commi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu May 4 18:45:50 2017
New Revision: 247615
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-04 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk.
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
--- Comment #4 from tomas_paukrt at conel dot cz ---
I wanted to trace this issue down to the root cause, but the Dart is quite
large project and I realy do not have time to isolate the code that triggers
this bug and fix it myself, so I just aske
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80631
Bug ID: 80631
Summary: Compiling with -O3 -mavx2 gives wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80564
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
Bug ID: 80632
Summary: error: invalid PHI argument with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80564
--- Comment #5 from r.hl at gmx dot net ---
See also the discussion on Phabricator: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32824
I agree; AFAICS [func.bind.bind] is clear on this: the type of the Func
object used to call the member operator() is non-const.
O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
This bugs seems to have appeared between revision 247534
and 247578.
I'll have a go at reducing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80564
--- Comment #6 from Robert Haberlach ---
(In reply to TC from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Fiselier from comment #3)
> > Here is an example of why `_Bind::operator()(...) const` must be considered
> > during overload resolution even if the cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80564
--- Comment #7 from Robert Haberlach ---
Oh, damn. "Submit only my new comment" does not what I thought it does. :-)
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: Casey at Carter dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41321
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41321&action=edit
Repro (sorry, not library-free)
gcc 7.1.1 20170504 and 8.0.0 2017050
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code:
a;
b() {
int c;
if (d()) {
e();
switch (a) {
case 0:
c = 1;
break;
case 1:
c = 0;
break;
case 2:
c = 0;
break;
case 3:
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu May 4 20:54:43 2017
New Revision: 247618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/79214 - -Wno-system-header defeats strncat buffer overflo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79222
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu May 4 20:54:43 2017
New Revision: 247618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/79214 - -Wno-system-header defeats strncat buffer overflo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79223
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu May 4 20:54:43 2017
New Revision: 247618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/79214 - -Wno-system-header defeats strncat buffer overflo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
Bug 54924 depends on bug 79214, which changed state.
Bug 79214 Summary: -Wno-system-header defeats strncat buffer overflow warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79223
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80634
Bug ID: 80634
Summary: strangely missed vectorization optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80634
--- Comment #1 from Steven Noonan ---
Created attachment 41323
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41323&action=edit
icc 17.0.1 outputs for ELEMS=1 through ELEMS=32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Bug ID: 80635
Summary: std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitilized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Alves ---
If you uncomment the lines to use std::optional instead, you get:
$ /opt/gcc/bin/g++ optional.cc -g3 -O2 -Wall -std=gnu++17 -c
optional.cc: In function ‘void func()’:
optional.cc:28:15: warning: ‘maybe_a.A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #2 from Pedro Alves ---
Looks like a regression at some point:
There are no warnings with g++ 5.3.1, either reduced testcase, or with the
obvious change to use std::experimental::optional instead of std::optional.
Also no warnings w
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
