https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Bisecting this leads to
/home/ig25/Gcc/Bisect-bin/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/ig25/Gcc/Bisect-bin/./gcc/ -xc -S
-c /dev/null -fself-test
../../Bisect/gcc/input.c:1154: FAIL: ASSERT_STREQ (exp_filename, LOCATION_FILE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89789
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70742
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
We could implement __builtin_ variants with a different ABI, returning the
quotiend and remainder in a (GCC extension) _Complex int type. The library
would then do
#define div(a, b) ({ div_t res; _Complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note that in theory we can handle vector sizes up to 1<<(1<<10) given we
store TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS logarithmic and have 10 bits for the exponent...
If we want to limit it we should document the limit if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89804
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The decision is currently to limit GIMPLE-level memcpy "inlining" to
power-of-two
(mode-precision) (single) moves and leave the rest to RTL expansion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89795
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89795
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reproduced with -O2 -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate -fno-sched-pressure
-mtune=generic-armv7-a -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mabi=aapcs-linux -marm
-march=armv7-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89811
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89788
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Yes, It seems to be a Typo.
The bellowing code also use path.
202 if (closedir (dir) < 0)
203 COIERROR ("Cannot close directory %s.", path);
204 if (rmdir (path) < 0)
205 COIERROR ("Cannot rem
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC 9.0.1 20190325/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
now segfaults with "g++ -Wduplicated-cond" - it worked about a week ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89789
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so we oscillate for
# vh_5 = PHI
vh_12 = vh_8(D) ^ vh_5;
where vh_8(D) is undefined. First we get zero (vh_8 ^ vh_8) then we get,
with vh_5 == 0 (UNDEF meet 0) we get vh_8(D) and so on.
The issue is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89795
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89814
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89790
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 25 10:05:15 2019
New Revision: 269907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-25 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/89790
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89775
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Mar 25 10:18:57 2019
New Revision: 269910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: Fix PR89775. Stackpointer save/restore instructions removed
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89493
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88474
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Right. I am going to fix this early in stage 1 for GCC 10. It slipped off my
radar again in 9, and I don't want to do it late in the release because of
potential fallout.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861
--- Comment #17 from Mike Crowe ---
In https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-02/msg00637.html , I proposed the
addition of the pthread_cond_clockwait function (among others) to glibc, and
whilst there are a few comments on the patches, there'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
--- Comment #3 from sduguay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Testcase:
>
> #pragma once
> int main() {}
>
> > g++ t.C -S
> t.C:1:9: warning: #pragma once in main file
> #pragma once
> ^~~~
>
>
> you could work aro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the dg-require-alias is the right thing though, this is not related to
native vs. non-native TLS, but:
/* If the variable is internal, or if we can't generate aliases,
call the local init func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> I think the dg-require-alias is the right thing though, this is not related
> to native vs. non-native TLS, but:
> /* If the variable is internal, or if we can'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
--- Comment #4 from sduguay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> You haven't explained why do you need to use #pragma once in the main cpp
> source file, are you sometimes including it as a header and other times
> compiling it as th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #24 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 25 11:48:36 2019
New Revision: 269911
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269911&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/79540
* io/write_float.def (build_fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 25 11:53:56 2019
New Revision: 269912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60702
* g++.dg/tls/thread_local11.C: Remove scan-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed on the trunk now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89802
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 25 12:15:59 2019
New Revision: 269913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89802
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89779
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 25 12:18:38 2019
New Revision: 269914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89779
a-hardfloat
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190325 (experimental) (GCC)
The .ira dump has:
...
(insn 55 24 32 2 (set (reg:QI 145 [143])
(const_int -1 [0x])) "testcase.c":10:7 191
{*arm_movqi_insn}
(nil))
...
(insn 58 43 47 2 (set (reg:QI 143)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to sduguay from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Testcase:
> >
> > #pragma once
> > int main() {}
> >
> > > g++ t.C -S
> > t.C:1:9: warning: #pragma once in main fil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #7 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
Thanks for taking this up Richard! I just want to check back: Do you need any
assistance with testing or more information from my side?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62181
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Was this question ever answered?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01337.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89806
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nbkolchin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely ---
From PR 89806:
Sample code:
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdate-time"
const char* g_test = "dirty-" __DATE__;
When compiling with g++ (g++ -Werror=date-time) this produces:
:2:31: error: macro "__DA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Bug ID: 89816
Summary: [9 Regression] std::variant move construction
regressed since GCC 8.3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Moritz Kreutzer from comment #7)
> Thanks for taking this up Richard! I just want to check back: Do you need
> any assistance with testing or more information from my side?
Not at this point -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89789
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89789
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 25 13:53:50 2019
New Revision: 269917
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269917&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89789
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62181
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> Was this question ever answered?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01337.html
Oh that's intentional.
This would make this warning more useful, whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Patch posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01192.html
Some of your bugs might turn out as duplicates if they are fixed by that patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-debug |
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62181
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> > Was this question ever answered?
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01337.html
>
> Oh that's inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #38 from Nickolay Kolchin-Semyonov ---
Since this is a long standing problem, maybe this limitation should be
mentioned in official documentation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, qrzhang at gatech dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
>
> --- Comment #9 from Qirun Zhang ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #9 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Patch posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01192.html
>
> Some of your bugs might turn out as duplicates if they are fixed by that
> patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The problem here is that the older approach knows that it's always from type X1
to type X1, never from type X4 to X2. The visitation approach generates
combinations that we never use.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89700
--- Comment #6 from Antony Polukhin ---
Another way to workaround the warning is to use something like
`my_class(my_class&) requires false;`. That's too ugly to use.
I'd be fine with closing this issue as a 'won't fix'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89817
Bug ID: 89817
Summary: remove references to type modes from user docs for
vector extensions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #6 from Antony Polukhin ---
The fix seems pretty trivial: in function `__variant_construct` get the address
of the sorage before entering the `__do_visit` and make it switch only by the
`__rhs`.
Pseudo-code:
template
void __va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Looks good - I'll do a patch shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89705
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Mar 25 16:10:06 2019
New Revision: 269918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89705 - ICE with reference binding with conversion funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89705
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01200.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Mar 25 16:38:48 2019
New Revision: 269919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89214 - ICE when initializing aggregates with bases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89818
Bug ID: 89818
Summary: possibly invalid name mangling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89818
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
related to PR 88413 and PR 67343
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
related to PR 67343.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89818
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
And related to the upstream ABI issue:
https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/38 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, wrong-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796
--- Comment #6 from Arsène Pérard-Gayot ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 46018 [details]
> gcc9-pr89796.patch
>
> Untested fix.
>
> You could have used simpler
> #pragma omp atomic capture
> prev = c++;
> tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89819
Bug ID: 89819
Summary: [9 Regression] std::variant operators regressed since
GCC 8.3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #9 from Antony Polukhin ---
BTW, I think there are some other cases where binary visitation could be
simplified to unary (significantly reducing the code size and improving the
compile times). I've filled Bug 89819, but looks like ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89815
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89819
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89817
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Assignment can be made to avoid double-visitation, instead of using
_M_destructive_move/copy. Other than that, getting it to generate fewer table
items needs the idea from the other bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE with |[8 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87748
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 25 18:27:08 2019
New Revision: 269921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87748 - substitution failure error with decltype.
This iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87480
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 25 18:27:08 2019
New Revision: 269921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87748 - substitution failure error with decltype.
This iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87748
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] G++-8 |[8 Regression] G++-8 treats
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
