https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85497
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85499
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 85498 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85478
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The cross from comment #6 did not trigger the problem because I accidentally
built it with --disable-checking. Dropping this and adding
--with-long-double-128 triggers the ICE on a full cross as well as on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85500
Bug ID: 85500
Summary: auto specifier incorrectly defining new function when
initializing from function identifier
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65923
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> but we do:
> 6987/* Handle calls that return values in multiple non-contiguous
> locations.
> 6988 The Irix 6 ABI has examples of this. */
> 6989if (GET_CODE (temp) == PARALLEL)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85478
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The problem is similar to PR83753 but with a different call-chain. Richard
Sandiford fixed it by adding:
/* First cope with the degenerate case of a single-element
vector. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85499
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is an exact dup of an older bug that I can't find right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is fixed on trunk, I'm wondering whether to backport it to gcc-6-branch
and gcc-7-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is only fixed on trunk, but I think I planned to fix it for gcc-7 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at dcousens dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69260
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wuyongwei at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Slightly different testcase from PR 69620 which is probably the same issue:
struct function {
template
function(F);
};
template
auto sum(T1 x, T2 y)
{
return x + y;
}
template
auto sum(T1 x,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85491
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85491
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||84037, 84016
--- Comment #2 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50462
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85501
Bug ID: 85501
Summary: missed if-conversion / phiopt trick
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85422
--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 44006
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44006&action=edit
Adjusted patch with testcase
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> adjusted patch:
Added testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77711
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My patch doesn't help for comment 2 because we never call
invalid_nonstatic_member_fn when the nonsense expression refers to the name of
an overloaded member function. Instead we perform overload resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80311
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50462
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the original example in this bug is the same as PR 77711 comment 2. It
can be reduced to:
struct ostream { };
void operator<<(ostream, int) { }
void operator<<(ostream, void*) { }
void operator<<(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19741
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-01-15 21:09:27 |2018-4-23
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85422
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, patch
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16070
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template struct basic_ios { };
template basic_ios& endl(basic_ios& x) { return x; }
template
voidBar(const T&) {}
voidBar(int) {}
int main() {
Bar(endl);
}
GCC trunk says:
1607
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85489
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 23 12:29:00 2018
New Revision: 259559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86/cet: Use unsigned integer to unwind shadow stack
Use unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85489
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85489, which changed state.
Bug 85489 Summary: config/x86/sjlj.S should use unsigned integer to unwind
shadow stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85489
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16070
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose we could potentially have a special case for:
16070.cc:9:13: note: couldn't deduce template parameter 'T'
It could say:
16070.cc:9:13: note: couldn't deduce template parameter 'T' from an
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
>
> --- Comment #35 from Martin Sebor ---
> Here are the proposed changes:
>
> Pointe
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:47:52AM +0200, Dávid Bolvanský wrote:
> Hello,
>
> #include
> int main(void)
> {
> char buf[10];
> return snprintf(buf, 0, "string");
> }
>
> GCC simplifies it to
> main:
> mov eax, 6
> ret
>
> but 0 is correct I think.
No, 6 seems to be the correct value:
If the out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3)
> >
> > My feeling is that the target patterns should also do the address
> > computation, ie stack_pr
I really do not think a '-Wpedantic -Wconversion' warning should
be generated for the following code, but it is
(with GCC 6.4.1 and 7.3.1 on RHEL-7.5 Linux) :
$ echo '
typedef unsigned short U16_t;
static void f(void)
{ U16_t a = 1;
a-=1;
}' > t.C;
$ g++ -std=c++14 -Wall -Wextra -pedant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #39 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, jameskuyper at verizon dot net wrote:
> Code which relies upon this feature to implement a C-style approximation to
> inheritance has been fairly common, which is preci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85423
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Mon Apr 23 15:19:06 2018
New Revision: 259563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85423
* sel-sched-ir.c (has_depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85201
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
@marxin Is this a real bug? or this bug is only default behavior?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
Bug ID: 85503
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in replace_swapped_load_constant,
at config/rs6000/rs6000-p8swap.c:1853 on
powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
$ cat gasgraphics.ii
# 3 "" 3
namespace b {
template < int c > struct d { static constexpr int e = c; };
typedef d< false > f;
template < typename g > struct h { typedef g i; };
template < typename > class j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85504
Bug ID: 85504
Summary: Bogus -Wrestrict warning with -fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On 04/23/2018 07:11 AM, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
I really do not think a '-Wpedantic -Wconversion' warning should
be generated for the following code, but it is
(with GCC 6.4.1 and 7.3.1 on RHEL-7.5 Linux) :
$ echo '
typedef unsigned short U16_t;
static void f(void)
{ U16_t a = 1;
a-=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 23 19:11:22 2018
New Revision: 259571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85470 - wrong error with static data member.
* dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
base here is a constant pool constant, containing
(const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("_ZN26OnHoverHandlerGraphicsItem7cornersE")
[flags 0xc0] )
(const_int 8 [0x8])))
so this fails both because the sym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85505
Bug ID: 85505
Summary: Code accepted despite a variable using the same name
as a parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
--- Comment #4 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for chasing down the cause of the problem. I agree with the patch
proposed by jakub, assuming it passes regression testing.
Would you like me to do the testing? (be glad to unless someone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85506
Bug ID: 85506
Summary: ICE in gfc_assign_data_value, at fortran/data.c:448
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #8 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85507
Bug ID: 85507
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver, at
fortran/dependency.c:2258
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 23 19:58:57 2018
New Revision: 259572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85470 - wrong error with static data member.
* dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85505
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85508
Bug ID: 85508
Summary: runtime error in config/i386/i386.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44009&action=edit
gcc8-pr85503.patch
Full untested patch. I've started bootstrap/regtest on powerpc64-linux
(power7, big endian)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509
Bug ID: 85509
Summary: auto (function pointer) undermining inline expansion
with GCC but not LLVM
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #15 from Peter VARGA ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> Installing your own glibc in a new location and trying to point GCC to it
> with -I /FaF/glibc/include is not "the default settings".
>
> As has been explained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85500
--- Comment #2 from ASA ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is not a valid bug report, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for what we
> require.
>
> (In reply to ASA from comment #0)
> > When initializing an auto variable from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Apr 23 20:19:39 2018
New Revision: 259574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85496
* expr.c (store_field): In the bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Apr 23 20:29:22 2018
New Revision: 259576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85496
* expr.c (store_field): In the bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Apr 23 20:31:17 2018
New Revision: 259577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85496
* expr.c (store_field): In the bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68374
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69560
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 23 20:49:38 2018
New Revision: 259578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69560 - wrong alignof(double) on x86.
CWG 1879 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85503
--- Comment #6 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll do regression testing on LE and BE (just to be safe) with the new
regression test added to the test suite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:46:59PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
>
> --- Comment #8 from G. Steinmetz ---
> > These should have a new PR opened for them.
> Done. This is now pr85506.
>
Thanks. I had inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79916
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85510
Bug ID: 85510
Summary: Linking error when accessing a coindexed variable
inside an associate block
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83402
--- Comment #15 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Mon Apr 23 21:14:38 2018
New Revision: 259582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix _mm_slli_epi{32,64} for shift values 16 through 31 and ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85510
--- Comment #1 from Damian Rouson ---
As similar error message results if the associate construct is replaced with a
block construct of the form
block
integer n
n=1
print*,i[1]
end block
The error disappears if the 'bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85500
--- Comment #3 from ASA ---
> No, that's not valid as a function declaration.
Right, it's:
auto function_name( params ... );
Again, I should have slept before posting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85185
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85511
Bug ID: 85511
Summary: [X86] Using __builtin_ia32_writeeflags_u32 in 64-bit
mode causes internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85511
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #17 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Tue Apr 24 00:14:21 2018
New Revision: 259586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-23 Aaron Sawdey
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #18 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Tue Apr 24 00:19:43 2018
New Revision: 259590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-23 Aaron Sawdey
Backport from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85423
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
I guess this PR can be closed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85511
--- Comment #2 from Craig Topper ---
Should this builtin even be allowed in 64-bit mode?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509
--- Comment #1 from ASA ---
I should add that without the static storage duration specifier even without
const specified, it does inline the function invocation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30920
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Does the patch still apply?
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
