https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90240
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90119
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #7)
> I didn't want to sound that harsh in my previous comment.
>
> What I wanted to say is: to make the linter reliable and be able to handle
> the full syntax of .po f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90241
Bug ID: 90241
Summary: [UBSAN]: in ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90242
Bug ID: 90242
Summary: [UBSAN]: in vn_reference_compute_hash
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90240
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
Also, cost in inner loop is scaled by big number:
Scaling cost based on bb prob by 1.00: 0 (scratch: 0) -> 0 (1/1)
Scaling cost based on bb prob by 1.00: 32 (scratch: 0) -> 32 (1/1)
Scaling co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243
Bug ID: 90243
Summary: diagnostic notes that belong to a suppressed error
about an uninitialized variable in a constexpr
function are still shown
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
Yes, C++ with NRV optization, so the alignment of (res) is 4.
and the alignment of res is 16 in C.
g++/test.i.158t.vect:
../test.i:8:23: note: recording new base alignment for &
alignment:4
misalign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Cost_model for Function vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment are quite tunable.
More benchmarks are needed if we want to do so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
Bug 86932 depends on bug 90227, which changed state.
Bug 90227 Summary: [9 Regression] trunk rejects polymake since r269965
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90227
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90227
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #23)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 27869 [details]
> > Patch for adding merge-gcda
> >
> > here is the patch which adds merge-gcda .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #55 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #60 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90219
--- Comment #2 from Timm Bäder ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Well if you took the address you wouldn't need to cast it to (float*)
Sure, this was just a dumbed-down version of the original code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90240
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[9 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90235
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> From PR 90202:
>
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-1 pr90202]$ cat x.ii
> struct v {
> int val[16];
> };
>
> struct v test(struct v a, struct v b) {
> struct v res;
>
> for (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89819
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90241
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Flag -O2 required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90242
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Only flag -O2 required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89819
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> I've just applied the patch to trunk, rebuilt f951 on
> sparc-sun-solaris2.11 and tested unlimite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90240
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Graphite, so IMHO not a release blocker.
but the issue is critical, it could happen with general optimization level for
loop nest with huge scaling factor.
So, find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90244
Bug ID: 90244
Summary: [UBSAN]: in get_object_alignment_2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Bug 47093 depends on bug 90045, which changed state.
Bug 90045 Summary: [9 Regression] fails to build a rx-elf cross toolchain with
C++ enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90045
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90045
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #21 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #20)
> Thanks for the testing.
You are welcome.
> Could you open new PRs for the new backtraces?
Done. Most of them were already mentioned in bugzilla, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90245
Bug ID: 90245
Summary: A data race with a segmentation fault handler
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90245
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-4-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
Also what's better between aligned load/store of smaller size VS unaligned
load/store of bigger size?
aligned load/store of smaller size:
movq%rdx, (%rdi)
movq-56(%rsp), %rdx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90245
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90246
Bug ID: 90246
Summary: std::bad_variant_access messages are not useful
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90246
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90247
Bug ID: 90247
Summary: Reconsider OpenACC implicit data attributes for
pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90247
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90245
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Bug ID: 90248
Summary: larger than 0 compare fails with -ffinite-math-only
-funsafe-math-optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90194
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 25 11:15:35 2019
New Revision: 270569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-25 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90194
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90213
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 25 11:17:49 2019
New Revision: 270570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-24 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90213
* gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #22 from Nikolay Bogoychev ---
Hey,
I was reading through the mailing list discussion (
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00757.html ) and I want to say
that currently code like
void __attribute__ ((target("avx512dq")))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90232
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90235
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
>
> --- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
> Also what's better between aligned load/stor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81963
rick at snowlight dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rick at snowlight dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81963
--- Comment #3 from rick at snowlight dot net ---
Comment on attachment 46243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46243
32-bit libgcc config.log for *86*-sun-solaris2.10
note that this was part of a multi-stage build starting fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90240
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Nikolay Bogoychev from comment #22)
> Hey,
>
> I was reading through the mailing list discussion (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00757.html ) and I want to say
> that currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90244
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 25 12:18:07 2019
New Revision: 270572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/44648
* g++.dg/warn/Wunused-var-35.C: Remove xfail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In fact the copysign transform, for the cases where we negate X _relies_ on
signed zeros...
Only exact
/* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
and
/* Transform (X < 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #24 from Nikolay Bogoychev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #23)
> (In reply to Nikolay Bogoychev from comment #22)
> > Hey,
> >
> > I was reading through the mailing list discussion (
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, all those look quite questionable, -fno-signed-zeros doesn't mean 0.0 or
-0.0 won't appear, just that it shouldn't matter if 0.0 or -0.0 appears.
So the > 0.0 and <= 0.0 cases look completely bogus and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88277
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Yeah, all those look quite questionable, -fno-signed-zeros doesn't mean 0.0
> or -0.0 won't appear, just that it shouldn't matter if 0.0 or -0.0 appears.
Yeah,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90249
Bug ID: 90249
Summary: [9 regression] Code size regression on thumb2 due to
sub-optimal register allocation.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90249
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> Yes, C++ with NRV optization, so the alignment of (res) is 4.
> and the alignment of res is 16 in C.
>
> g++/test.i.158t.vect:
>
> ../test.i:8:23: note: recording ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90250
Bug ID: 90250
Summary: libphobos: segfault in runtime caused by unexpected GC
of TLS data.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
>
> --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88154
Zaak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbeekman at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from Zaa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
James Clarke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
--- Comment #8 from James Clarke ---
Oh, and the reason it didn't show up with an older binutils is because it
didn't support dwarf2 debug_view:
> checking assembler for dwarf2 debug_view support... no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #3 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have found that removing the pattern in match.pd resolves this issue with no
regressions on various powerpc targets. I have not tested on other platforms.
Index: gcc/match.pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not the right thing to do.
Anyway, as for the wrong-code, do you see any gcc version where it actually
passes? Tried various versions, e.g. r205000, r235000, r250907 and r268427 and
all of them abort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88154
--- Comment #3 from Zaak ---
Some additional test cases from the OC bug tracker. These fail using
gfortran -fcoarray=single
and when linking against opencoarrays, so it seems there is an issue on the GCC
side (possibly the OC side too, but let'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think the issue is that we gimplify
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__int128 unsigned>(<<< Unknown tree: compound_literal_expr
V D.2833 = y; >>>)
via
12399 case VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR:
12400 if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Apr 25 14:32:16 2019
New Revision: 270574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90037
* Makefile.in (OBJS): Remove tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172
Bug 86172 depends on bug 90037, which changed state.
Bug 90037 Summary: [9 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after
r269302
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Actually we use is_gimple_val so testing fallback & fb_rvalue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|Multiple problems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, the C notation
typedef unsigned __int128 V __attribute__((vector_size (sizeof (__int128;
V
foo (unsigned __int128 x, V y, int z)
{
y[0] = x;
}
on x86_64 prouces
{
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__int128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90250
--- Comment #1 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Thu Apr 25 15:31:35 2019
New Revision: 270576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libphobos: Fix segfault in runtime caused by unexpected GC o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90250
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90036
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90246
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's too late to change this now, but we could still improve the messages:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/variant
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/variant
@@ -1200,10 +1200,12 @@ namespace __variant
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90251
Bug ID: 90251
Summary: missing spaces in string literals
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90251
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> From parser.h:
} GTY((desc ("(%1.type == CPP_TEMPLATE_ID)"
"|| (%1.type == CPP_NESTED_NAME_SPECIFIER)"
"|| (%1.type == CPP_DECLTYPE)"))) u;
> If there's a space after the |
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
