https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #14 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
See https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-74196
That's how I found this at all: the latest current releases don't build
together. And I guess that most projects that somehow are descendants of KJS
will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89569
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why would 3 be the expected value? Line numbers are natural numbers, not
uint32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I updated the benchmark and push it here:
https://github.com/marxin/microbenchmark-1
And I see following on my Haswell machine:
$ ./test.py
normal retpolineretpo+no-JT retpo+JT=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #17 from Stephen Kitt ---
Thanks for the fix Jakub, I’ve verified it on Qt and Andre Heinecke has
verified it on Gpg4Win (see https://bugs.debian.org/923214 for details).
jon_y, you can have your weekend back ;-).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Stephen Kitt from comment #17)
> Thanks for the fix Jakub, I’ve verified it on Qt and Andre Heinecke has
> verified it on Gpg4Win (see https://bugs.debian.org/923214 for details).
Thanks.
> j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14721
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 03:52:08 |2019-3-6
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to Taewook Oh from comment #7)
> > I'm Sorry I was confused about our internal gcc version, and it turns out
> > that the version was 8.3 not 7.3.
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 24647, which changed state.
Bug 24647 Summary: two copies of a constant in two different registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24647
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89603
Bug ID: 89603
Summary: unclassifiable statement error in code that is ok in
compaq visual fortran
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24647
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #19 from Stephen Kitt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> (In reply to Stephen Kitt from comment #17)
> > jon_y, you can have your weekend back ;-).
>
> Well, it should be tested also with a GCC bootstrap/regtest, that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Stephen Kitt from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Stephen Kitt from comment #17)
> > > jon_y, you can have your weekend back ;-).
> >
> > Well, it s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #21 from Stephen Kitt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Cross compilers don't bootstrap (build themselves multiple times), only
> build.
Sorry, I meant I did a library-less cross-build, followed by a MinGW-w64 build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42972
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-18 12:45:53 |2019-3-6
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89603
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Rolf Eike Beer from comment #14)
> The other thing is: given that 8.3 does not show a diagnostic message that
> is at least remotely helpful this looks for any end user just like a
> compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #16 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
Please stop with the unnecessary and unhelpful insults. This is the second time
I've had to ask you that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14721
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #3)
> Maybe something for tree-switch-conversion?
Yes, would be possible to implement, but I'm not fully convinced it's a common
pattern that happens in switch statem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hello Harald,
Yes, that is what I would like you guys to do. But I'll stop working
on this now, that is fine as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #18 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
I would have expected something that is more like the error message in this
case:
class foo {
static void bar() const;
};
error: static member function ‘static void foo::bar()’ cannot have cv-qualifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89604
Bug ID: 89604
Summary: Type conversion from signed char to a wider integer
generates wrong assembly for ARM,
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88530
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Wed Mar 6 09:34:04 2019
New Revision: 269412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AArch64: Have empty HWCAPs string ignored during native feature detec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45903
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45903&action=edit
gcc9-pr89585.patch
Untested patch for better diagnostics of this in GCC 9, for GCC 8 we could just
not diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89604
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
In C, plain char can either be signed or unsigned; this is unlike int.
Which of signed char or unsigned char has the same range, representation, and
behavior as “plain” char (C90 6.1.2.5, C90 6.2.1.1, C99 an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Borkmann ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #19)
> Ok, I updated the benchmark and push it here:
> https://github.com/marxin/microbenchmark-1
>
> And I see following on my Haswell machine:
Thanks for working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88530
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Wed Mar 6 09:49:00 2019
New Revision: 269413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AArch64: Fix command line options canonicalization version.
Commandl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88530
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> Created attachment 45903 [details]
> gcc9-pr89585.patch
Thanks. I'll test this on GCC 8, with trivial changes to accept asm volatile,
when I get back home.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89577
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 6 10:01:16 2019
New Revision: 269415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use --coverage instead of -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage in documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89577
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 6 10:13:08 2019
New Revision: 269416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-06 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/89551
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
Bug 89497 depends on bug 89551, which changed state.
Bug 89551 Summary: [9 regression] Test case gcc.dg/uninit-pred-8_b.c fails
after r269302
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89551, which changed state.
Bug 89551 Summary: [9 regression] Test case gcc.dg/uninit-pred-8_b.c fails
after r269302
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45904
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45904&action=edit
gcc8-pr89585.patch
The 8.x version would be like this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think it only makes sense to pass aggregates with a flexarray member by
reference and pass the return slot by reference as well. Only the caller
can know the complete type used here. This means passing b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It depends if the users can expect that they can actually access the flexible
array members or if it is like if they declare a new variable with that type
without initializer and then copy it over. In the la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
For the original testcase clang++ produces
leaq16(%rbp), %rdx
...
movq%rdx, -56(%rbp) # 8-byte Spill
...
movq-56(%rbp), %rcx # 8-byte Reload
movl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> It depends if the users can expect that they can actually access the
> flexible array members or if it is like if they declare a new variable with
> that type wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
Bug ID: 89605
Summary: A method cannot have two identical lambdas as default
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
--- Comment #1 from xavier at cremaschi dot fr ---
FYI it also compiles if there is no class but just a free function :
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
using ConverterFunction = function;
void _foo(
const Con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #22 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
I can confirm that with gcc 8.3 with the gcc8-patch Qt 5.12.1 builds fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89578
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89603
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Yumashev ---
Great ! Thanks a lot !
>Среда, 6 марта 2019, 12:04 +03:00 от steven at gcc dot gnu.org
>:
>
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89603
>
>Steven Bosscher changed:
>
> What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Daniel Borkmann from comment #20)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #19)
> > Ok, I updated the benchmark and push it here:
> > https://github.com/marxin/microbenchmark-1
> >
> > And I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 6 11:46:15 2019
New Revision: 269419
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Charry pick libsanitizer r355488 (PR sanitizer/88684).
2019-03-06 Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed such patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00262.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
--- Comment #2 from xavier at cremaschi dot fr ---
rguenth are you sure for the 'link-failure' keyword ?
It's truly a compilation error, triggered while compiling a given c++ file, it
does NOT wait until linking to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517
--- Comment #4 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Wed Mar 6 12:56:05 2019
New Revision: 269422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Rewrite variant, also PR libstdc++/85517
* include/std/variant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89602
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Wed Mar 6 13:38:32 2019
New Revision: 269423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-06 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89578
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So it looks like the change from r269097 to r269098 is only 2.5% (I've included
the followup fix ontop of r269098):
481.wrf 11170245 45.7 * 11170251 44.5 S
481.wrf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89606
Bug ID: 89606
Summary: Extra mov after structure load instructions on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89607
Bug ID: 89607
Summary: Missing optimization for store of multiple registers
on arm and aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89602
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45905
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45905&action=edit
gcc9-pr89602-wip.patch
Untested patch without testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89608
Bug ID: 89608
Summary: Undetected iterator invalidations on unordered
containers in debug mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87378
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 6 15:34:50 2019
New Revision: 269427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87378 - bogus -Wredundant-move warning.
* typeck
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Mar 6 15:36:43 2019
New Revision: 269428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/88845
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87378
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 29843, which changed state.
Bug 29843 Summary: [meta-bug] C++98 standard conformance issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29040
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-09-12 20:59:08 |2019-3-6
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #5)
> This time for sure.
Indeed: r269411 did fix the build against mpfr 2.4.2 for my test config.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89592
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The standard is clear that flexible array members are not copied but ignored:
In most situations, the flexible array member is ignored. In particular, the
size of the structure is as if the flexible array me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89608
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code *does* compile, but GCC outputs duplicate symbols, so it doesn't
assemble (or link).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89609
Bug ID: 89609
Summary: bug box caused by access to function as a record
component via a limited with
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89603
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Your code is not standard-conforming. Do this: ...
You can also use -fdec, but it's better to fix the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78511
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82768
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89610
Bug ID: 89610
Summary: Move-assigning a pmr container sometimes copies the
elements instead of moving them
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89611
Bug ID: 89611
Summary: Compilation ok with 'class', but ko with 'struct'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88820
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
Bug ID: 89612
Summary: internal compiler error: in push_access_scope, at
cp/pt.c:237
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89602
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89611
--- Comment #1 from xavier at cremaschi dot fr ---
I forgot that default inheritance is private. My bad. This is NOT a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89576
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 6 18:39:24 2019
New Revision: 269433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89576 - if constexpr of lambda capture.
Now that we're doi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89576
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] constexpr |[8 Regression] constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced (invalid):
template bool b;
template
struct C {
template friend int foo() noexcept(b<1>);
};
template int foo() noexcept(b<1>);
auto a = C();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45903|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89550
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87148
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 6 18:46:32 2019
New Revision: 269434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87148
* init.c (build_value_init_noctor): Ignore fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Reduced (invalid):
>
> template bool b;
>
> template
> struct C {
> template friend int foo() noexcept(b<1>);
> };
>
> template int foo() noexcept(b<1>)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #24 from Harald van Dijk ---
Created attachment 45910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45910&action=edit
gcc-8-pr89585-warn.patch
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> Created attachment 45904 [details]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89381
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89604
--- Comment #3 from christopher békési ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> In C, plain char can either be signed or unsigned; this is unlike int.
>
> Which of signed char or unsigned char has the same range, representation,
> and b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89604
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to christopher békési from comment #3)
> How come that it was decided to make the char on ARM unsigned whereas on x86
> platforms it's signed by default?
I don't know, you are going to have to ask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
And a better testcase, and actually valid:
template
struct C {
template
friend int foo() noexcept(N);
};
template
int foo() noexcept(N);
C c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89611
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
