https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84428
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85302
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85300
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43891
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43891&action=edit
gcc8-pr85300.patch
Actually, most RTX_UNARY ops are ok, at least those where we declare that the
outer mode is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85312
Bug ID: 85312
Summary: trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:12041: poor error checking ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |---
Summary|[8 Regression] w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85248
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 10 07:24:59 2018
New Revision: 259265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Be more carefull about DECL merging in LTO (PR lto/85248).
2018-04-10 Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85248
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85313
Bug ID: 85313
Summary: gcc/fortran/openmp.c: 2 * confused logic ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-*-*, powerpc64-*-*,|powerpc64-*-*, spu-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85314
Bug ID: 85314
Summary: gcc/fortran/resolve.c:9222: unreachable code ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85302
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, I have tried to discuss this on IRC couple times but we got no conclusion
what to do here. I think I will simply go with the proposed patch + additional
hack to ignore arch mismatches when callee has no e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> Well, I have tried to discuss this on IRC couple times but we got no
> conclusion what to do here. I think I will simply go with the proposed patch
> + additional ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
Bug ID: 85315
Summary: missed optimisation opportunity for derefences
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Well, I have tried to discuss this on IRC couple times but we got no
> > conclusion what to do here. I think I will simply go with the proposed patch
> > + additional hack to ignore arch mismatches when ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85302
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted a proposed fix to the mailing list as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00419.html
(please ignore the stuff I mistakenly pasted to the subject line).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> HJs testers do not show the failure on i?86 anymore. The other regressions
> must be older, likely since testcase introduction in June 2017 wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I'll get numbers/profiles for r253992, r253993 and r254012 for -Ofast
-march=haswell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82100
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
For this code:
extern void g( int, int);
extern void h( int, int);
void f( int i, int j)
{
if (i < j)
{
if (i < j)
g( 0, 0);
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85302
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43892
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43892&action=edit
gcc8-pr85302.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86-*-solaris2 |*-*-solaris2.11
--- Comment #76 from Raine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85075
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Maybe I'm confused, but: How does this even build?
_Float128 is a C-only extension, this type is not supposed to be available at
all in C++ mode as far as I know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Actually r253993 was just the changelog part, r253975 was the actual change.
So I'm doing r254012 vs r254011 instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85314
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug ID: 85316
Summary: [meta-bug] VRP range propagation missed cases
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note for
int x;
...
*(&x + (a + b))
if x is common we need to take -funconstrained-commons into account, similarly
for vars that end with flexible array members or similar arrays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85317
Bug ID: 85317
Summary: missing constant propagation on _mm(256)_movemask_*
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85318
Bug ID: 85318
Summary: -Wc90-c99-compat does not warn about for loop initial
declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 10 09:58:57 2018
New Revision: 259266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[explow] PR target/85173: validize memory before passing i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85313
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78715
vopl at bk dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vopl at bk dot ru
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85307
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78715
--- Comment #3 from vopl at bk dot ru ---
probably the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67225
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78955
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80962
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84428
--- Comment #23 from Peter Rabbitson ---
Could you please link the upstream issue you are referring to?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85286
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Apr 10 10:28:33 2018
New Revision: 259268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing cases to vect_get_smallest_scalar_type (PR 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 43893
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43893&action=edit
Darwin-ish tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85313
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
This doesn't seem to work:
(gdb) run
The program being debugged has been started already.
Start it from the beginning? (y or n) [answered Y; input not from terminal]
Starting program:
c:\home\botcazou\anod-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85312
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85312
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43895
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43895&action=edit
gcc8-pr85312.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
There are still debuglto sections in the primary object file:
3 .gnu.debuglto_.debug_info 0094
026c 2**2
CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> This doesn't seem to work:
>
> (gdb) run
> The program being debugged has been started already.
> Start it from the beginning? (y or n) [answered Y; input not f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85286
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So I guess for darwin we're confused by lto-wrapper.c:debug_objcopy using
simple_object_read *inobj = simple_object_start_read (infd, inoff,
"__GNU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84428
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Rabbitson from comment #23)
> Could you please link the upstream issue you are referring to?
It's written in URL of this bug, take a look at top of the page.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85295
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2018-04-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85319
Bug ID: 85319
Summary: std::char_traits::length does not always
function in constexpr context
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85129
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Actually r253993 was just the changelog part, r253975 was the actual change.
>
> So I'm doing r254012 vs r254011 instead.
Base = r254011, Peak = r254012
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85320
Bug ID: 85320
Summary: Segmentation fault when building XKAAPI
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85075
--- Comment #4 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho ---
(In reply to Ulrich Weigand from comment #3)
> Maybe I'm confused, but: How does this even build?
It does not. There is an ICE before the build error message appears.
> _Float128 is a C-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85320
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85321
Bug ID: 85321
Summary: Missing documentation and option misc for ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43896
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43896&action=edit
r254011 with peeling disabled
The other differences look like RA/scheduling in the end the stack frame in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43897&action=edit
r254012 with peeling disabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'll see if I can make time to look at this one soon. I suspect the new
peeling costs check from Robin just made this test invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85177
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 10 12:37:36 2018
New Revision: 259269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/85177
PR target/85255
* config/i386/sse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85255
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 10 12:37:36 2018
New Revision: 259269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/85177
PR target/85255
* config/i386/sse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85177
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85204
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 10 12:59:08 2018
New Revision: 259270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/84748: Mark *compare_cstore_insn as cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85322
Bug ID: 85322
Summary: [8 Regression] profiledbootstrap failured
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85323
Bug ID: 85323
Summary: SSE/AVX/AVX512 shift by 0 not optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:05:24 2018
New Revision: 259271
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259271&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/84748: Mark *compare_cstore_insn as cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85323
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz ---
Created attachment 43898
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43898&action=edit
idea for a partial solution
Constant propagation works using the built in shift operators. At least for the
sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:11:40 2018
New Revision: 259272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR testsuite/85190
* gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even with LVUs if I try the #c0 testcase with outer 3 loops commented out (so
only 8x8 unrolling) and with a single dimension array rather than 3 dimensional
one, i.e.:
int d, e, f;
int
main ()
{
for (d =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24314
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82336
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vis...@royal-caliber.com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85311
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24314
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:40:35 2018
New Revision: 259273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/24314
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85248
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:52:23 2018
New Revision: 259274
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix obvious error in handling of error attribute (PR lto/85248).
2018-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85313
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 10 14:04:37 2018
New Revision: 259275
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259275&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/85313
* openmp.c (resolve_omp_do): Remove bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85313
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 10 14:24:00 2018
New Revision: 259278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/65821 - wrong location for main().
* call.c (cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 regression] |[6/7 regression] incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85285
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 10 14:23:54 2018
New Revision: 259277
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85285 - ICE with flexible array after substitution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85285
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85312
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 10 14:28:54 2018
New Revision: 259279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85312 - P0962 cleanup
* parser.c (cp_parser_perform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85262
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85279
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 10 14:29:52 2018
New Revision: 259280
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85279 - dump_expr doesn't understand decltype.
* e
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
