https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Mon May 20 06:59:06 2019
New Revision: 271395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Fix PR 81721: ICE with PCH and Pragma warning and C++ operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 May 2019, ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501
>
> --- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra ---
Oh, and .LTHUNK0 is a function symbol with a local entry offset..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 20 07:18:10 2019
New Revision: 271396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-20 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/90518
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Steve,
what I meant is that
Program main
Integer(kind=1) :: n
n = 1
End
should not warn with -fno-range-check -Wall, and it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #13 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #12)
> This new test fails on arm:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cdce3.c scan-tree-dump cdce "cdce3.c:9: [^\n\r]* function call
> is shrink-wrapped into error conditions."
I don't have ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Note the rev. in question can only have made a previously latent issue
> exposed.
>
> It's also not clear to me why this isn't a target issue given there's not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon May 20 07:55:00 2019
New Revision: 271400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Come up with hook libc_has_fast_function (PR middle-end/90263).
2019-05-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #7)
> "The macro NULL is an implementation-defined null pointer constant.", says
> the C++ standard draft.
So it does, maybe I was misremembering something from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 60100 seems to be the opposite case, where a warning disappears when
-save-temps is used. Related, but maybe not a dup.
Anyway, here's another example where -save-temps (or preprocessing and
compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The code we have for promoting __BUILTIN_ALLOCA_WITH_ALIGN should be probably
extended to also promote __BUILTIN_ALLOCA (or commented as to why we
explicitely
do not want to do that). See tree-ssa-ccp.c:fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90528
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90525
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85569
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90534
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90538
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90529
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 20 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Mon, 20 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
> >
> > --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88406
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Is this still worth investigating given that we've dropped support for Solaris
> 10?
It depends: this single bug accounts for 91% of all tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88406
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 regression] Many |[9 regression] Many 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
Sure, here is the contents of cdce3.c.105t.cdce:
;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=4197, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=0)
foo (float x)
{
float _4;
[local count: 1073741824]:
_4 = sqrtf (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Use of -fno-range-check |Spurious (?) warning when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> That is, why's
>
> Index: gcc/gimple-walk.c
> ===
> --- gcc/gimple-walk.c (revision 2713
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #15 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> Sure, here is the contents of cdce3.c.105t.cdce:
>
> ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=4197, cgraph_uid=1,
> symbol_order=0)
>
> foo (float x)
> {
> fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Bug ID: 90539
Summary: [10 Regression] 481.wrf slowdown by 25% on Intel Kaby
with -Ofast -march=native starting with r271377
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #16 from Christophe Lyon ---
That's what I did... (use -fdump-tree-cdce-details).
The assembler code is:
.arm
.fpu softvfp
.type foo, %function
foo:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
@ frame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90540
Bug ID: 90540
Summary: Improve diagnostic for forming array of abstract class
type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #17 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #16)
> That's what I did... (use -fdump-tree-cdce-details).
>
> The assembler code is:
> .arm
> .fpu softvfp
> .type foo, %function
> foo:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #18 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to JunMa from comment #17)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #16)
> > That's what I did... (use -fdump-tree-cdce-details).
> >
> > The assembler code is:
> > .arm
> > .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #11 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #19 from JunMa ---
we can skip the target by adding
/* { dg-skip-if "need hardfp abi" { *-*-* } { "-mfloat-abi=soft" } { "" } } */
to testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46383&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 20 11:32:51 2019
New Revision: 271412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90532 Ensure __is_constructible(T[]) is false
An array of an unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
is this an ice-on-valid or an ice-on-invalid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Haswell as well
(https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-czerny-head-64-2006/recent.html)
but only 10% and not bisected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
Are you still working on this, Jonathan?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > Still present at r220301 (see
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-01/msg03581.html). Does the
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70378
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-20 6:26 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> most definitely a reload as
>
> +(insn 177 176 178 2 (set (reg:SI 52 %fr24)
> +(subreg:SI (reg:DI 51 %fr23) 4)) -1
> + (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90400
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90541
Bug ID: 90541
Summary: Warning not emitted on use of uninitialized variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon May 20 12:28:18 2019
New Revision: 271415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite - fix PR58321
Darwin doesn't emit a .file directive by de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #13)
> > On 2019-05-20 6:26 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > > most definitely a reload as
> > >
> > > +(insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 20 13:02:10 2019
New Revision: 271417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90532 Ensure __is_constructible(T[]) is false
An array of an unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 20 13:04:39 2019
New Revision: 271418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90532 Ensure __is_constructible(T[]) is false
An array of an unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90542
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90542
Bug ID: 90542
Summary: Build with --enable-libstdcxx-debug fails on Solaris
due to symbol conflicts
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90542
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like the std::e[a-q]* pattern can simply be removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Bug ID: 90543
Summary: Build failure on MINGW for gcc-9.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90544
Bug ID: 90544
Summary: Build failure on MINGW for gcc-9.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90544
--- Comment #1 from Florian Bauer ---
Created attachment 46386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46386&action=edit
Occured error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With a local entry offset? Do you mean it has non-zero top three bits of
st_other?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Yes, just like the function _ZN12Intermediate1vEv.
From here:
.set.LTHUNK0,_ZN12Intermediate1vEv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90541
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-20 8:14 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> My feeling is reload should respect pa_can_change_mode_class().
> Maybe it's asking wrong since you have
>
> if (GET_MODE_SIZE (f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
I am a bit surprised at this, that the library version
of packing seems to be faster than the inlined one.
Or maybe some argument is now packed which should not be.
Increased code size is sort of expected,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon May 20 14:53:29 2019
New Revision: 271422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[i386] Fold __builtin_ia32_shufpd to VEC_PERM_EXPR
2019-05-20 Marc Gliss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
--- Comment #4 from Leo Sandoval ---
I cannot reproduced the problem on neither on 10.0.0 nor gcc-9-branch. This
time I made sure that I had a clean build folder and starting from this, I did
not see the issue (somehow, when sharing the same buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
Leo Sandoval changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #20 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Mon May 20 15:01:46 2019
New Revision: 271424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] PR90106 Fix cdce3.c testcase
2019-05-20 Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 07:32:09AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> what I meant is that
>
> Program main
> Integer(kind=1) :: n
> n = 1
> End
>
> should not warn with -fno-range-check -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:48:23AM +, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
>
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
> is this an ice-on-valid or an ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90541
--- Comment #2 from Andy Wingo ---
Thanks for the information. For what it's worth, clang issues a warning for
this code, and includes this warning under -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90525
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545
Bug ID: 90545
Summary: [10 regression]
gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splats-floatdouble.c fails
starting with r271022
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 89732 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
Bug ID: 90546
Summary: [9.1 regression] Incorrect template argument deduction
for conversion functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90547
Bug ID: 90547
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gen_lowpart_general, at
rtlhooks.c:63
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
--- Comment #1 from Nick Krempel ---
My interpretation of the standard didn't take into account the reference to
http://eel.is/c++draft/over.match.ref when determining the type A.
It says that A will be "lvalue reference to cv2 T2 ... where cv1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
Bug ID: 90548
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy_and_build, at
cp/pt.c:18877
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90549
Bug ID: 90549
Summary: missing -Wreturn-local-addr maybe returning an address
of a local array plus offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90550
Bug ID: 90550
Summary: ICE in determine_visibility, at cp/decl2.c:2567
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
--- Comment #2 from Nick Krempel ---
However it's also worth noting that if you take the original snippet and change
the declaration of "test" to accept a const rvalue reference instead: "void
test(const Foo&&);", then gcc 9.1 (and all other gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
(gdb) p (*call_args).is_empty()
$5 = true
so
tree arg = (*call_args)[i];
where i == 0 won't work.
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
