https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86300
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
_Bool is in the implementation reserved namespace so it can be a keywork if an
implementation wants.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86082
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jun 25 07:16:59 2018
New Revision: 262003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262003&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: Fix PR86082
When turning a user-defined numerical literal into a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86304
Bug ID: 86304
Summary: [9 regression][MIPS] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr79887.c
-mmsa (internal compiler error) starting with r261740
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 25 07:49:27 2018
New Revision: 262004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-25 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83118
Back port from t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 25 07:52:09 2018
New Revision: 262005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-25 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83118
Back port from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
Bug ID: 86305
Summary: g++ segfaults when compiling template member function
that calls destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
>
> --- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #14)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
Bug ID: 86306
Summary: Initializing atomic qualified type with another atomic
qualified type leads to assertion failure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86307
Bug ID: 86307
Summary: Function template and ?: causes segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
Bug ID: 86308
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] verify_gimple failed in tree-cfg.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86309
Bug ID: 86309
Summary: Clang rejects partial specialization with non-type
template argument of different type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86310
Bug ID: 86310
Summary: Clang rejects partial specialization with non-type
template argument of different type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85893
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85578
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47805
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86297
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85952
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86297
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Sorry, I should have scanned a little better for existing PRs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86298
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 86298 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86310
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86309
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 86310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86303
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comeau might have accepted it in 2010 but EDG rejects it today:
"ap.cc", line 20: error: no instance of constructor "Y::Y" matches the argument
list
argument types are: (auto_ptr)
Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #2 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> It's correctly rejected by GCC because _Atomic is a C keyword, not a C++ one.
>
> Please try to understand the code before filing bugs, and conside
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
_Atomic is a C keyword, it is not part of C++.
Clang++ accepts it as a non-standard extension. GCC ddoes not accept it,
because it's not part of C++.
If you don't understand what this means, stop filing b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86307
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86302
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 86307 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
--- Comment #2 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to zhonghao from comment #0)
> > A previous version of clang++ produces similar error message for this code,
> > but was fixed.
>
> No it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83426
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86309
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83426
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86257
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jun 25 10:39:54 2018
New Revision: 262006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[i386/debug] Fix insn prefix in tls_global_dynamic_64_
2018-06-25 Tom de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > (In reply to zhonghao from comment #0)
> > > A previous version of clang++ produces similar error message for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you tried the latest g++ why are you reporting bugs for version 8.0.1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> g++ segfaults when compiling template member function that calls destructo
No it doesn't!
> A previous version of clang++ produces similar error
> messages:https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30361
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #5 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> _Atomic is a C keyword, it is not part of C++.
>
> Clang++ accepts it as a non-standard extension. GCC ddoes not accept it,
> because it's not part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #5)
> Another bug report (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21835) also used
> the code. In particular, David Majnemer said that the following code,
>
> typedef _Ato
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Because you are just blindly copying things from one bugzilla to the other,
> without making any effort to check if what you are reporting is sensible.
For e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
--- Comment #5 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> If you tried the latest g++ why are you reporting bugs for version 8.0.1?
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to zhonghao fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
--- Comment #6 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> If you tried the latest g++ why are you reporting bugs for version 8.0.1?
My gcc is 8.0.1. Sorry for ignoring the fast releases of gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86301
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The link I gave explains that such code is ill-formed, no diagnostic required.
See https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/ub for an explanation.
That means the compiler is not required to give an erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #3 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > g++ segfaults when compiling template member function that calls destructo
>
> No it doesn't!
>
>
> > A previous version of clang++ produces si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86234
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #4 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > g++ segfaults when compiling template member function that calls destructo
>
> No it doesn't!
>
>
> > A previous version of clang++ produces si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The error message comes from the clang bug report, not from Clang 7.0.0 -- have
you even read the clang report that you're copying?!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #6 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The error message comes from the clang bug report, not from Clang 7.0.0 --
> have you even read the clang report that you're copying?!
I attached t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #7 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The error message comes from the clang bug report, not from Clang 7.0.0 --
> have you even read the clang report that you're copying?!
Indeed, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #8 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > The error message comes from the clang bug report, not from Clang 7.0.0 --
> > have you even read the cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #6)
> I attached the original bug report only to help better understand the bug.
> If you do not need the original bug reports, I will not report the original
> bug report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86279
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #8 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > Because you are just blindly copying things from one bugzilla to the other,
> > without making any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jun 25 11:31:45 2018
New Revision: 262010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix vector homogeneous aggregates (PR86197)
The existing co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86284
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #9 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > > Because you are just blindly copying things from one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86286
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86311
Bug ID: 86311
Summary: gcc_qsort calls memcpy with overlaps
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86306
--- Comment #10 from graham.stott at btinternet dot com ---
very poor bug reports they waste time for people they don't have
Original message
From: "zhonghao at pku dot org.cn"
Date: 25/06/2018 12:37 (GMT+00:00)
To: gcc-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86299
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi |arm-none-eabi, i?86-linux
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86286
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> But when a noexcept function calls a non-noexcept function there is
> additional code needed to call std::terminate if an exception occurs:
I forgot to inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84860
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86286
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Isn't noexcept mapped to nothrow currently?
The case I'm concerned about is this (I forgot to add it to the original
submission, sorry):
int g (int i);
int g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86286
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
You are trying to size-optimize the EH tables? Does this case occur frequently
enough to matter?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86304
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I can reproduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86312
Bug ID: 86312
Summary: missing runtime warning for array temporary with
-fcheck=array-temps
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 25 12:48:29 2018
New Revision: 262014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84786
* config/i386/sse.md (vshift_count): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 25 12:57:04 2018
New Revision: 262015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84786
* config/i386/sse.md (vshift_count): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 25 12:58:03 2018
New Revision: 262016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-25 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/84786
* gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86304
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 25 13:04:38 2018
New Revision: 262017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86296
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86296
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
$ g++ b.cpp -O1 -fsantiize=address
$ ./a.out
=
==22544==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-use-after-scope on address
0x7ffc3624eca0 at pc 0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86295
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kristian Spangsege from comment #0)
> The problem occurs when either `std::__uninitialized_copy_a()` or
> `std::__uninitialized_move_a()` throws due to throwing from the copy or move
> construc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86313
Bug ID: 86313
Summary: make -Warray-temporaries less noisy
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85047
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
If there's a way to do
void foo (int n, struct { int x[n]; } *s)
{
s->x[1] = 0;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct S { int x[argc]; } s;
s.x[1] = 1;
foo (argc, &s);
if (s.x[1] != 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86313
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another case for which I don't see why one should throw a warning (but I get
two):
program p
implicit none
character(len=2), parameter :: formats(1:5) = (/ 'A ', 'B ', 'C ', 'D ', 'E
' /)
1 - 100 of 323 matches
Mail list logo
