https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 15 07:37:53 2018
New Revision: 258550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/84853
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) :
If cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE: |[7 Regression] ICE:
|v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84860
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84860
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 15 08:35:28 2018
New Revision: 258552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84860
* optabs.c (emit_conditional_move): Pass a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 15 08:55:04 2018
New Revision: 258553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Vladimir Mezentsev
PR target/68256
* var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > > gcc version 8.0.1 20180310 (experimental) [trunk revision 258413] (GCC)
> >
> > Just a nit, this revision mentioned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84824
--- Comment #7 from linzj ---
The core of this problem is escaped result is function wise, not block wise, or
instruction wise. Any place in the function the local variable escapes, will
count that variable as escaped.
Actually the printf does n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
Bug ID: 84874
Summary: internal compiler error: in reshape_init_class, at
cp/decl.c:5800
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Bug ID: 84875
Summary: ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2348
on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Or rather it looks like a tree sharing issue. The COND_EXPR is created via
fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg when folding
(unsigned int) (long int) (1.0e+0 +
1.555111512312578270211815834
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
Bug ID: 84876
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on invalid code in lra_assign at
gcc/lra-assigns.c:1601 since r258504
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-3-15
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
ICEs likely since r185587, before it has been rejected:
pr84874.C: In function ‘void sema_init(semaphore*)’:
pr84874.C:30:2: error: no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘* sem = 0}},
{"(*sem).lock"}}}’
pr84874.C:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why the
+ if (TREE_CODE (*op1_p) == INTEGER_CST)
+ *op1_p = fold_convert (unsigned_type_node, *op1_p);
+ else
+ *op1_p = build1 (NOP_EXPR, unsigned_type_node, *op1_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Why the
> + if (TREE_CODE (*op1_p)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
Bug ID: 84877
Summary: Local stack copy of BLKmode parameter on the stack is
not aligned when the requested alignment exceeds
MAX_SUPPORTED_STACK_ALIGNMENT
Product: gcc
|2147483647 |2147483647
--- Comment #28 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With a current trunk (gcc version 8.0.1 20180315 / trunk revision 258550), I
don't see the warnings on comment 0 and comment 3 any more.
I do see them with gcc version 7.2.0 (Ubuntu 7.2.0-1ubun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-eabi
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81304
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for fixing, Jakub! Will you backport to gcc-6-branch as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
struct A { const char *a, *b; };
struct B { struct A c; };
void
foo (B *x)
{
*x = { .c = { .b = "" } };
}
*x = B { .c = { .b = "" } };
instead of
*x = { .c = { .b = "" } };
works fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84878
Bug ID: 84878
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in
add_cross_iteration_register_deps)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84711
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Thu Mar 15 10:53:17 2018
New Revision: 258554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Tamar Christina
PR target/84711
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84711
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66672
Anders Schau Knatten changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anders at knatten dot org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43664&action=edit
gcc8-pr84874.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84711
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Hi Richi.
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #31)
> I'd have not restricted the out-of-loop IV use to IV +- CST but
> instead did the transform
>
> + LOOP:
> + # p_8 = PHI
> + ...
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
>
> --- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Hi Richi.
>
> (In reply to rguent...@sus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think GCC needs to copy P0 to a properly aligned stack slot in the prologue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84879
Bug ID: 84879
Summary: GCOV tool crash when invoked for intermediate format
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/38#i
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84880
Bug ID: 84880
Summary: [libgfortran] libgfortran fail to build on aarch64/arm
32bit cross toolchain
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't have my bisect s390x seed built with checking, but from the generated
code I think this started with r207605.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #39 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #38)
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
> >
> > --- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |6.5
Summary|[8 Regression] IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
Bug ID: 84881
Summary: internal compiler error: in assign_temp, at
function.c:968 when building for gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
--- Comment #1 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
I forgot to mention: The ICE doesn't happen when building for i686 or x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
--- Comment #2 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
Created attachment 43666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43666&action=edit
Result of the compilation with -fbugreport enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
>
> --- Comment #39 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at tmm dot cx
--- Comment #3 from Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #41 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #40)
> Well, your patch only replaces increments it can modify possibly
> leaving uses unaltered. That's IMHO not good.
>
> Which is why I suggested to have it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 15 13:10:24 2018
New Revision: 258556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Richard Biener
PR c/84873
* c-gimplify.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, we have a function which conditionally bypasses the prologue and epilogue
and just performs a tailcall, otherwise saves two registers (%r10 and %r11)
into %f2 and %f0 registers, clobbers one of them (%r11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[6/7/8 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
The summary is now misleading as well. IMHO the bug shouldn't have been
overloaded with the fallout of the original fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
--- Comment #5 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
I can build the file I reported #84881 on with the following extra options: -O3
-fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-ccp
-fno-code-hoisting -fno-tree-pre -fno-tree-vrp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||33315
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70291
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882
Bug ID: 84882
Summary: -mstrict-align on aarch64 should not be RejectNegative
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82491
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Thanks Richard!
>
> Now I still see the other issue in dwarf2out:
>
> Breakpoint 1, based_loc_descr (reg=0x751183a8, offset=...,
> initialized=VAR_INIT_STATU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] Revision |[8 Regression] there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, my bad. It is easy to fix. I think the patch will be ready today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Like moving over a const call after the stores might cause us to spill across
the call. Moving over any stmt could enlarge lifetimes enough to do that.
Register
lifetime could be so that we cannot coalesce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81575
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81575
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Eh, never mind the first hunk then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84883
Bug ID: 84883
Summary: No warning when dereferencing an array as a pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84884
Bug ID: 84884
Summary: [DR 2244] [C++17] protected constructor and aggregate
initialization of base
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #8 from Zhendong Su ---
> Can you please attach content of --save-temps?
$ gcctk -O3 -c --save-temps small.c
during RTL pass: dse1
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:12:1: internal compiler error: in smallest_mode_for_size, at
stor-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84852
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Mar 15 15:39:46 2018
New Revision: 258559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix testcase for PR c/84852
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c/8485
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 43668 [details]
> gcc8-pr79085.patch
>
> Untested fix.
That fixes the original testcase for me. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
Bug ID: 84885
Summary: c_char bind length
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39808
Dave Pagan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.pagan at oracle dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #6 from Dave Pagan ---
Helpful update, Jonathan - did you want to follow up on this bug then? Or
should I go ahead based on your new information?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84841
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the other side, the assumption that +/* of two REAL_CSTs can be always
folded isn't false just for -frounding-math, but also e.g. with IBM long double
(aka composite mode) and no -funsafe-math-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> Sorry, my bad. It is easy to fix. I think the patch will be ready today.
Unfortunately, this test also triggers more serious problem of my last patch
(r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035
--- Comment #7 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #6)
> Since we have docstring relicensing maintainers, I don't think this is an
> issue now.
Oops, that slipped my mind. Indeed, we can consider t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84765
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
My advice would be to create a new option Wreturn-pedantic. Make this
option control the pedwarns that don't have any option. Then, enable it by
default, but also make it be enabled by Wpedantic and Wre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 15 17:45:01 2018
New Revision: 258568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84222
* cp-tree.h (cp_warn_deprecated_use): Declare
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
