https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61936
hr.jonas.hansen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hr.jonas.hansen at gmai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83997
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
bu11.cc:10:1: internal compiler error: tree code 'template_parm_index' is not
supported in LTO streams
this usually means FE tree codes leak somehow into the middle-end there's a
free_lang_data langhook for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84000
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 24 08:43:40 2018
New Revision: 257011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-24 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/84000
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, wrong-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84005
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84012
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84014
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84003
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Bug ID: 84016
Summary: Spec2000 regression around Jan 14 and Jan 19 2018
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I was copied, presumably because the problem occurred in var-tracking.
I've tried to duplicate the problem on gcc112. I bootstrapped the trunk
(without any --with-cpu flag), and then build attachment 432
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82819
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 24 09:31:56 2018
New Revision: 257012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82819
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83176
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 24 09:37:41 2018
New Revision: 257013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83176
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
Bug ID: 84017
Summary: [6/7/8 regression] Bootstrap failure on Solaris 10/x86
with gas/ld
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84010
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84018
Bug ID: 84018
Summary: [6/7/8 regression] Bootstrap failure on Solaris 10/x86
with gas/ld
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84018
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
*** Bug 84018 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83977
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another related example:
struct S { int a, b, c; };
#pragma omp declare simd uniform(z) linear(v:1)
__attribute__((noinline)) static int
foo (int x, int y, struct S z, int u, int v)
{
return x + y + z.a;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83921
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] GCC|[7 Regression] GCC rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83947
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|jason at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
--- Comment #8 from Lionel GUEZ ---
It does not seem completely true that gfortran makes no distinction between
qNaN and sNaN. There is the option -finit-real of gfortran with the different
possible values nan and snan. Also, there is the option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83996
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81352
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 24 11:27:10 2018
New Revision: 257014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, PR81352] Add exit insn after noreturn call for neutered threads in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
Bug ID: 84019
Summary: [7/8 regression] ICE under fold-const
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
--- Comment #1 from Allan Jensen ---
First line of the ICE (the only line reported by system gcc)
../../src/init2.c:52: MPFR assertion failed: p >= 2 && p <=
((mpfr_prec_t)((mpfr_uprec_t)(~(mpfr_uprec_t)0)>>1))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
I can provide the intermediate code, but I haven't created a reduced test-case,
so it would be big.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84020
Bug ID: 84020
Summary: [nvptx] Add GOMP_NVPTX_JIT=-O[0-4] in nvptx libgomp
plugin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84020
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc, openmp, patch
Target Milestone
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
trunk 20180124 fails to build libgo on powerpc64le-linux-gnu:
libtool: compile: /<>/build/./gcc/gccgo
-B/<>/build/./gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84022
Bug ID: 84022
Summary: Run nvptx accel tests with GOMP_NVPTX_JIT=-O0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84022
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 43231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43231&action=edit
Tentative patch, running nvptx accel tests with GOMP_NVPTX_JIT=-O0 in
libgomp.{c,c++}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84023
Bug ID: 84023
Summary: gcc.dg/ipa/inline-8.c fail with -fpic
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84012
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81352
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81352
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84021
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84024
Bug ID: 84024
Summary: internal compiler error: in operator>, at
profile-count.h:855
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84001
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84023
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Somehow switch-conversion doesn't transform the switch with -f{PIE,PIC}.
> Without
> we get
>
> phy_modes (phy_interface_t interface)
> {
> const char * _1;
> co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83992
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
In this case the problem happens before the assembler. The bad location
information shows up in reemit_insn_block_notes in gcc/final.c. As the first
insn in the block has no location, reemit_insn_block_n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
This patch works on the testcase:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c
index c2538908340..a1e85407bf3 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84024
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
>
> --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83992
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Corresponding C testcase would be something like:
static inline void
foo (void)
{
int j;
while (1)
for (j = 0; j < 0x7fff; ++j)
;
}
int
main ()
{
foo ();
}
at -O2 -g {,-fno-var-tracking-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2018
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 24 13:52:12 2018
New Revision: 257016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, PR83589] Workaround for branch-around-nothing JIT bug
2018-01-24 T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 24 13:52:12 2018
New Revision: 257016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, PR83589] Workaround for branch-around-nothing JIT bug
2018-01-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> > The question is why run-time relocations aren't allowed.
>
> Probably added to save binary space? An optimization would be to
I don't think so:
text da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84025
Bug ID: 84025
Summary: [nvptx] Don't generate branch-around-nothing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Version|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84023
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think that's probably spurious:
>
> void
> set ()
> {
> a=nan("");
> }
> ...
> float a = move (1);
> if (!__builtin_constant_p (a))
> __builtin_abort ();
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #21 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #19)
> I was copied, presumably because the problem occurred in var-tracking.
>
> I've tried to duplicate the problem on gcc112. I bootstrapped the trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84026
Bug ID: 84026
Summary: invalid 'unnamed scoped enum is not allowed' when
scoped enum has a full qualified-id
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
mgrid also on AMD Fam10:
https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-megrez-head-64/recent.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84008
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 24 15:20:53 2018
New Revision: 257018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82249 - wrong mismatched pack length error.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83796
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> mgrid also on AMD Fam10:
> https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-megrez-head-64/recent.html
Interesting about this regression is that mgrid is a single so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:53:40AM +, guez at lmd dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
>
> --- Comment #8 from Lionel GUEZ ---
> It does not seem completely true that gfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84006
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84007
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83976
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84010
--- Comment #5 from James Clarke ---
My patch seems to work for this case:
sethi %tie_hi22(tcg_ctx), %g2
...
add %g2, %tie_lo10(tcg_ctx), %g1
ldx [%l7 + %g1], %g1, %tie_ldx(tcg_ctx)
stx %g2, [%fp+178
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks! -flto makes differnce even for single file benchmarks (because of
thrown away type info and extra info from linker). So perhaps that is reason
why it did not reproduce?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81535
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just an FYI that the output of this test case changed a bit somewhere in the
range r256987 to r257017:
Now it gets this:
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c scan-assembler-times \\mbl g\\M 1 (foun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83889
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:22:40 2018
New Revision: 257022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove explicit dg-do runs from gcc.dg/vect (PR 83889)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83979
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:22:30 2018
New Revision: 257021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix use of boolean_true/false_node (PR 83979)
r255913 c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83977
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:28:47 2018
New Revision: 257023
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257023&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83977
* tree.c (free_lang_data_in_decl): Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82514
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Further reduced:
template void i(h) { }
template void n() {
[] {
struct p { };
i(p{});
};
}
auto f = n<1>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84027
Bug ID: 84027
Summary: new-expression does not accept an
attribute-specifier-seq
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
