https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87024
Bug ID: 87024
Summary: ICE in fold_stmt_1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I wonder if the auto-regression police can help here increasing coverage?
Here you are: PR87024.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
Bug ID: 87025
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in add_record, at
optinfo-emit-json.cc:175
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87014
--- Comment #5 from camper ---
test case (-O0):
using ll = long long;
void fillstack() {
ll foo[] = {
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
};
}
void f(ll=-1,ll=-1,ll=-1,ll=-1,ll=-1,ll=-1,ll arg7_on_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
--- Comment #10 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems to be closed on GCC 8 and 7, OK to close?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
--- Comment #11 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chefmax from comment #10)
> Seems to be closed on GCC 8 and 7, OK to close?
s/closed/fixed/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87014
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86107
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Bug ID: 87026
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached,
at recog.c:2218
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc-linux
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87027
Bug ID: 87027
Summary: lower_bound returns erroneous result, 32 bit
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31413
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #26)
> Paolo, do you remember if this testcase was specifically testing the zh_TW
> locale, or just sing that as an example of a locale using wide characters?
s/j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87024
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81830
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For unnamed class and enumeration types the typedef is the name of the type for
linkage purposes, so it can be used even if it's never referred to e.g.
template void use(T) { }
void g (void)
{
typedef e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87017
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. it only works with clang and ICC because you're using them with an older
version of libstdc++, which didn't enforce this requirement. Saying "it
compiles with three compilers all using the same standar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87020
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87020
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This property of the library is documented:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/bugs.html#manual.bugs.dr2108
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anon63 at protonmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
Just builded latest gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20180820 (experimental) commit 316828699
on Debian Linux 4.17.0-1-amd64 with gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52801
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery |
CC|redi at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78448
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lists at sagnix dot eu
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87027
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78448
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78448
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
UBsan shows where the overflows happen:
/home/jwakely/gcc/9/include/c++/9.0.0/bits/stl_vector.h:359:59: runtime error:
pointer index expression with base 0x6760f010 overflowed to 0xf760f010
/home/jwakely/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87017
Peter VARGA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Peter VARGA ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87019
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Lehmann ---
I found out that this bug was encounter in the following forum as well:
https://github.com/szaghi/HASTY/issues/6
and then opened in this case:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78682
But unfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #2 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
Do I understand it correctly that this will get optimized into one statement
saying
bar = std::optional(10);
If so, is there something that could prevent such optimizations in order to
check if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to bobogu from comment #2)
> Do I understand it correctly that this will get optimized into one statement
> saying
>
> bar = std::optional(10);
No, it's not an optimization.
When you assign a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #4 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to bobogu from comment #2)
> When you assign an int to optional it is equivalent to constructing a
> temporary optional and then assigning tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80931
--- Comment #8 from Arjen Markus ---
Thank you! I do appreciate such comments - apart from the fun it was
to write the book and experiment with all the features of Fortran, it
is great to hear that other people enjoy it too.
Regards,
Arjen
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to bobogu from comment #4)
> I feel stupid, but I still don't understand how that can work in a constexpr
> context when the current c++17 standard doesn't specify any constexpr
> assignment opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 20 13:53:56 2018
New Revision: 263661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86963 Remove use of __tuple_base in std::tuple
The _Tuple_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87019
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 20 14:01:05 2018
New Revision: 263662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78655
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Note the original testcase is already optimized with GCC 8 due to the fix for
PR35878 and enabling it for all standard modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> In fact the p0602R3 proposal you linked to is relevant, because it would
> *require* implementations to define the operator as defaulted (in order to
> be tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #11 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44562&action=edit
bad rtl dump of combine pass
attached good and bad dump of combine, i also tried to look at the array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
Bug ID: 87029
Summary: Add -Wredundant-move
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86984
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 20 14:20:59 2018
New Revision: 263664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86984
* expr.c (expand_assignment): Assert that b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
Bug ID: 87030
Summary: GCC fails to build with Xcode 10, attempting an
impossible multilib build
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #7 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to bobogu from comment #4)
> All implementations define the assignment operator as defaulted, and so the
> compiler makes it constexpr.
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Starke ---
I am not quite sure how to do this in this case. GCC terminates without an
error but the resulting application misbehaves since GCC 8.1.0. That means the
assembly output is wrong. Any idea on how to make a re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86984
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to bobogu from comment #7)
> All right, I'm sorry then... I just thought that as this is undocumented, it
> could lead to producing an unportable code.
It could, except that you should get the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87019
Alexander Lehmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77871
Alexander Lehmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||welttensor at web dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #9 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to bobogu from comment #7)
> > All right, I'm sorry then... I just thought that as this is undocumented, it
> > could lead to producing an unp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87003
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
It would be good to make the header file be more self-documenting.
In general, every pointer argument ought to be non-NULL, but a NULL will be
checked for and gracefully rejected.
The exception is gcc_jit_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
Bug ID: 87031
Summary: nios2 optimization for size - two cases of regression
relatively to 5.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #1 from Michael_S ---
Created attachment 44564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44564&action=edit
second case - loop unrolled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #12 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the wrong string seems to be caused by a missing ldm
good main:
...
mov r4, #0
str r4, [sp, #32]
mov r2, #2
str r2, [sp, #36]
add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87032
Bug ID: 87032
Summary: incorrect nested structure with union initialization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(just to put this somewhere)
We have multiple ways of doing pointer arithmetic in gcc. After the recent
patch, we know that g returns nonnull, but we don't know it for f.
struct A{int a,b;};
int*f(A*p){return&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
Note there is also an issue with costs, if the cost is zero then it seems to
behave like infinite cost. It would be better to properly cost an instruction
sequence given there is a new interface for this now. If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
Created attachment 44565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44565&action=edit
conftest.s
Attached is the generated conftest.s file of the command
> /media/gcc-8.2.0-compiled/./gcc/xgcc -B/media/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87014
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 20 19:14:04 2018
New Revision: 263672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86: Always update EH return address in word_mode
On x86, return a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87033
Bug ID: 87033
Summary: The compiler does not generate the LWAX instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87033
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux-gnu-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #13)
> It seems the safest way
> to split an instruction is to place the new instructions next to each other.
combine can only place new insns at i2 and i3, in either or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> Note there is also an issue with costs, if the cost is zero then it seems to
> behave like infinite cost.
0 means unknown cost. Any known cost is treated as at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Aug 20 21:06:46 2018
New Revision: 263675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add support for grouping of related diagnostics (PR other/84889)
We o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
Another commit related to this: r263564 (add labeling of source ranges)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87023
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81761
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please do the combine dumps with details enabled; these are pretty useless.
(-fdump-rtl-combine-all)
A C testcase would be very helpful, too (or some magic configure command
to run on some cfarm machin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45963
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70694
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Last reconfirmed|2017-07-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.anglin at bell dot net,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87034
Bug ID: 87034
Summary: [9 Regression] missing -Wformat-overflow on a sprintf
%s with a wide string
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87034
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Aug 20 23:03:55 2018
New Revision: 263676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87034 - missing -Wformat-overflow on a sprintf %s wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #2 from Michael_S ---
After playing with the 2nd case on godbolt I found that it's not target
specific.
The regression occurred at all targets between gcc6 and gcc7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67958
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> > > Created attachment 39731 [details]
> > > Patch fixing the failures with the patches for pr71767
> >
> > please send this patch to gcc-patches for revie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
--- Comment #30 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #29)
> I posted this question on g...@gcc.gnu.org and got not response so I thought
> I would ask here on the bug report.
>
> I am trying to understand the status of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62234
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> > I added support for this in r256801:
> > dg-lto-warning and dg-lto-message
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87033
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Aug 20 23:46:37 2018
New Revision: 263678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-08-20 Michael Meissner
PR target/87033
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87023
--- Comment #2 from hhj ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #1)
> This is not a bug. The comment on c_fully_fold_internal explains its
> semantics, which only ever involve clearing *MAYBE_CONST_OPERANDS and
> *MAYBE_CONST_ITSELF (point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80191
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86832
Stefan Weil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sw at weilnetz dot de
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87035
Bug ID: 87035
Summary: Can't shadow global const int with unnamed enum in
class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87035
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Lesser ---
Huh, interesting. TIL. Where's that rule in the standard? Because I can't find
it in [class.mem]. Is it somewhere else or did I just overlook it?
100 matches
Mail list logo
