https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Ivan D Vasin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nisavid at gmail dot com
--- Comment #57
&& ./a.out
1
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.c && ./a.out
0
--
gcc version: gcc (GCC) 8.0.0 20171023 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82670
Bug ID: 82670
Summary: UBSAN bootstrap broken after recent libsanitizer merge
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82669
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82671
Bug ID: 82671
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch, at cfgrtl.c:4412
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82672
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82672
Bug ID: 82672
Summary: [8 Regression][GRAPHITE] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
Bug ID: 82673
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags
at gcc/config/i386/i386.c:12695
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> Starting from r251075 we ICE one:
Are you sure you got the correct revision? The one you referred to deals with
thread pointers and address spaces.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
Bug ID: 82674
Summary: ICE with -fstack-clash-protection
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82675
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82675
Bug ID: 82675
Summary: ICE in duplicate_loop_to_header_edge at
gcc/cfgloopmanip.c:1207
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> > Starting from r251075 we ICE one:
>
> Are you sure you got the correct revision? The one you referred to deals
> with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82129
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 23 09:20:14 2017
New Revision: 253998
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253998&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82129
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Version|unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Version|unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82675
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
What ISL version are you using? We have the same IL before ISL but the
transformed schedule is different and for some reason the AST generator
biases one IV by one.
Before the rev. ISL did even more weird
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42438
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42438&action=edit
patch that filters out comment lines in scan-assembler*
Alternative approach.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82676
Bug ID: 82676
Summary: GRAPHITE doesn't handle niter with may_be_zero
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82268
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Peryt ---
It passes with the provided modification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82268
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Guskov ---
The command line (broken into several lines for the sake of readability):
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /build/gcc/xgcc -B/build/gcc/
/source/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82196-1.c
-B/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
Pedro Alves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 23 11:10:28 2017
New Revision: 254004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/82644 document IS 29124 support
Also fix declarations of sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54027
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, info at learnthreejs dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54027
>
> Tristan changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82129
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 23 11:14:40 2017
New Revision: 254005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82129
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81181
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 23 11:14:40 2017
New Revision: 254005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82129
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
Bug ID: 82677
Summary: Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL,
etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially
resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #1 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
Created attachment 42440
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42440&action=edit
Similar test case using macros from GMP et. al.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #2 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
More immutable version of [5]:
[5] https://gmplib.org/repo/gmp/annotate/046bc83644a3/longlong.h#l1574
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77555
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 23 11:39:20 2017
New Revision: 254006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/77555
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77555
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|marmoo1024 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82668
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
On x86, by default, the compiler already assumes that flags are clobbered.
That's explained in a comment in GMP's longlong.h at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82659
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Likely related to PR57335.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Bug ID: 82678
Summary: g++ crashes on wrong lamda
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #5 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> [..]
> It's still safe to move the asm in
>
> int main() {
> ulong d = 0;
> for (ulong i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> for (ulong j = 0; j < 3; j++)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #2 from Sterge ---
Created attachment 42442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42442&action=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #1 from Sterge ---
Created attachment 42441
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42441&action=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #3 from Sterge ---
Created attachment 42443
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42443&action=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #4 from Sterge ---
Created attachment 42444
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42444&action=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #6 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
What I mean is, even if you do change GCC to fix the unintended optimisation,
other projects' code are *still wrong* - it's only correct if you can assume
the C compiler is optimising your code in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82667
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #6 from Sterge ---
Thanks mate and apologies for the spam!
Didn't know that's the version that comes with CentOS 7.
I am closing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Sterge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Sterge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
I posted fxcoudert's patch from comment 0 for review here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01478.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, infinity0 at pwned dot gg wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
>
> --- Comment #6 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
> What I mean is, even if you do c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Bug ID: 82679
Summary: Uses of typedefs of arrays of _Atomic-qualified types
are rejected
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82672
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 23 13:49:24 2017
New Revision: 254009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82672
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 23 14:58:23 2017
New Revision: 254011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82628
* config/i386/predicates.md (x86_64_dwzex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #2 from olivier.delande.spam at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> GCC is correct here, and this behavior is intentional:
I don't understand. The comment you are quoting mentions detecting
qualificati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39218
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82680
Bug ID: 82680
Summary: Use cmpXXss and cmpXXsd for setcc boolean compare
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 23 15:49:19 2017
New Revision: 254013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Skip DF_REF_INSN if DF_REF_INSN_INFO is false
We should chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #4 from olivier.delande.spam at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Sorry, I probably shouldn't have closed this. I guess what we want to
> reject is
>
> typedef int T[10];
> _Atomic T a;
>
> but no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82680
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622
--- Comment #3 from G. Steinmetz ---
Backtrace for example z2 from comment 1 :
(with new snapshot, configured with --enable-checking=yes)
$ gfortran-8-20171022 -c z2.f90
z2.f90:1:0:
program p
internal compiler error: tree check: expected arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
Bug ID: 82681
Summary: c-warn.c:1218: typo in warning message
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Any progress on this? We only need to partially revert the change it seems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi DIL,
On reflection, this is OK and agrees with your diagnosis:
> val_p._vptr = (struct __vtype__STAR * {ref-all}) &__vtab__STAR;
> val_p._len = 0;
> val_p._data = 0B;
> cep._vptr = (struct __vtype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I counted five uses of the word "chages" in the original patch.
Seemingly, the word is searched for in output from the testsuite.
$ pwd
/home/dcb/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite
$ fgrep chages `find . -name \*.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, I'm fixing those too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
--- Comment #2 from Furkan ---
Created attachment 42446
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42446&action=edit
.ii file for example03
Sorry, about the tar file but .ii file was bigger than 1MB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
--- Comment #3 from Furkan ---
Created attachment 42447
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42447&action=edit
Other two test cases that are failing as well
Again, sorry about the split submit but I remembered that I've found 2 m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Bug ID: 82682
Summary: [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr50038.c
scan-assembler-times movzbl 2 (found 3 times) since
r253958
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Oct 23 17:03:11 2017
New Revision: 254014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/82681
* c-warn.c (warnings_for_convert_and_check):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 23 17:16:38 2017
New Revision: 254015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81395 fix crash when write follows large read
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #16 from DIL ---
Hi Paul,
Thanks for looking into this issue. I ran the debugger again. The vtab
corruption occurs upon the first encounter in function VectorIterElement() in
line 720 of gfc_vector.F90. Just to make sure, that line b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 23 17:47:10 2017
New Revision: 254018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81395 fix crash when write follows large read
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Probably in grokdeclarator the test for _Atomic-qualified array types
should check declspecs->atomic_p rather than atomicp. (The check in the
parser in the case of _Atomic (type-name) is f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
Bug ID: 82683
Summary: GCC generates bad code with -tune=thunderx2t99
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82684
Bug ID: 82684
Summary: std::complex template specializations require C99
Complex
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52451
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82685
Bug ID: 82685
Summary: basic_string_view operator""sv(const char*,
size_t) should be noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82662
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Oct 23 19:01:38 2017
New Revision: 254020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82662
* gcc.target/i386/pr82662.c: New t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82662
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
