https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90894
Bug ID: 90894
Summary: maybe_unused attribute is ignored on function
parameters in explicitly instantiated templates
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the compiler itself used std::to_string and that function had a bug, I can
see how it might cause this, but that function is C++11 so GCC can't use it
anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
--- Comment #19 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Mon Jun 17 07:32:14 2019
New Revision: 272372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/80590
* exp_ch9.adb (Expand_N_Delay_Relative_Statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
--- Comment #20 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Mon Jun 17 07:34:04 2019
New Revision: 272373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/80590
* exp_ch9.adb (Expand_N_Delay_Relative_Statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
--- Comment #21 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Mon Jun 17 07:35:02 2019
New Revision: 272374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/80590
* exp_ch9.adb (Expand_N_Delay_Relative_Statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90889
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90889
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The gcc_unreachable in ipcp_verify_propagated_values gets tripped over
> if there is a TOP lattice in any of the IPA-CP scalar constant
> propagation lattices after the propagation.
>
> All non-local nodes g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Looking at the .gdk files, the difference is (only) in the
;; Function
lines where
funcdef_no=9263, cgraph_uid=3950, symbol_order=5009
differ in their numeric value.
(As it depends on this odd library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> Looking at the .gdk files, the difference is (only) in the
> ;; Function
> lines where
> funcdef_no=9263, cgraph_uid=3950, symbol_order=5009
> differ in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90892
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate that I've been testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88952
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Leonard
---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> the oldest GCC still supported is GCC 7.
Apologies if it was not clear, but I am just reporting the issue for posterity
and it was not easy for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> Warning for "2 ^ INT" seems reasonable, maybe just for that (I think I agree
> with comment #6).
>
> Not sure what to call it: "-Wexclusive-or"???
-Wexp[onen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jun 17 09:03:26 2019
New Revision: 272378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove dead code (PR ipa/90874).
2019-06-17 Martin Liska
PR i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 90874, which changed state.
Bug 90874 Summary: trunk/gcc/ipa-utils.h:243: possible cut-n-paste error ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maskray at google dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Which of those 3, or all of them?
At the end, I see changes in all of them - but I am not sure whether all of
them in all lines.
If I add a 'printf' to gcc/cgr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess the more interesting are the backtrace frames not shown, why it
compiler decided to instantiate it just without (resp. with) -g (or -g3 or
whatever you are using) and not the other. Is it some hash t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #21 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #20)
> Hi Kugan,
>
> The new test fails with -mabi=ilp32:
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr88834.c scan-assembler-times \\tld2w\\t{z[0-9]+.s
> - z[0-9]+.s}, p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #33 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Mon Jun 17 11:25:12 2019
New Revision: 272382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve PR64242 testcase
Clear the input array to avoid the testcase accidentall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #22 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to kugan from comment #21)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #20)
> > Hi Kugan,
> >
> > The new test fails with -mabi=ilp32:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr88834.c scan-as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90620
--- Comment #1 from Giulio Benetti ---
This ICE happens also building Qt5 with Gcc 8.x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46464|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90895
Bug ID: 90895
Summary: __attribute__((warning(""))) doesn't work for
dynamically dispatched calls to virtual functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90895
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Of course, if the code is optimized then no warnigns are issued at all, because
b.f() and b2.g() get inlined to nothing, and so no calls to the functions
remain.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Jun 17 13:46:59 2019
New Revision: 272384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/90754] name lookup ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90779
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> if I compile just the first TU without the foo () call in there, and
> .global .align 4 .u32 var$lto_priv$1[1] = { 5 };
> .global .align 4 .u32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88245
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Beliveau ---
The location for the note message is getting reset in cp/method.c
(synthesize_method), line 894, here:
if (!DECL_INHERITED_CTOR (fndecl))
DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fndecl)
= DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90281
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 17 14:19:04 2019
New Revision: 272385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90281 Fix string conversions for filesystem::path
Fix sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #15 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90896
Bug ID: 90896
Summary: [10 Regression] internal compiler error
indirect_ref_may_alias_decl_p
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90281
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 17 15:03:46 2019
New Revision: 272389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90281 Fix string conversions for filesystem::path
Fix sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #7)
> git bisect tells me that this commit (r272273) causes a regression on
> arm-linux-gnueabihf
>
> FAIL: ext/random/normal_mv_distribution/operators/serialize.cc (test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90887
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Still debugging.
I add tons of 'printf' and the first difference which shows up is the following
call:
check_return_expr -> build_non_dependent_expr (with flag == 2) ->
fold_non_dependent_expr -> fold_non_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90897
Bug ID: 90897
Summary: user defined conversion operators ambiguous in GCC8,
but not GCC7 and GCC9
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90888
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80738
--- Comment #2 from David Stone ---
*** Bug 90888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944
--- Comment #9 from Laurent Rineau
---
I still get the compilation error with gcc version 9.1.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
I am testing rather obvious fix
* tree-ssa-alias.c (indirect_ref_may_alias_decl_p): Fix TMR check.
Index: tree-ssa-alias.c
===
--- tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71026
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 17 15:43:23 2019
New Revision: 272390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/90873.
* tree-ssa-alias.c (indirect_ref_may_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70841
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
--- Comment #16 from Eric Gallager ---
I think David's original suggestion of -Wexclusive-or is the best name so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46493&action=edit
Patch to put all libgfortran functions into a namespace
This is something we should be doing as part of making
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90889
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, this is new: The problem is that topological ordering on which
IPA-CP operates is bogus, reverting Martin's r272115 restored Ada LTO
bootstrap for me.
I however tried breakpointing in IPA-CP's ignore_ed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90898
Bug ID: 90898
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in
insert_clobber_before_stack_restore, at
tree-ssa-ccp.c:2112
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90899
Bug ID: 90899
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in add_to_same_comdat_group,
at symtab.c:459
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90900
Bug ID: 90900
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in copy_rtx, at rtl.c:376
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90898
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90901
Bug ID: 90901
Summary: Debug information broken when compiled with
gdwarf-split
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> What about -Wxor-used-as-pow ?
-Wxor-power (or -Wpower-xor)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
Dominik Czarnota changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominik.b.czarnota+bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83820
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jun 17 18:26:07 2019
New Revision: 272395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83820 - excessive attribute arguments not detected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83820
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60352
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90897
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 17 18:40:22 2019
New Revision: 272396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62055
* config/i386/i386.md (*nabstf2_1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60680
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82182
Jason Duerstock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason.duerstock at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90858
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Here is another repoducer, that does not use std::variant:
#include
#include
#include
struct Base
{
int a;
template
static constexpr auto for_all_data_members(F&& func)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90902
Bug ID: 90902
Summary: collect2 does not propagate gcc -wrapper far enough to
wrap ld
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903
Bug ID: 90903
Summary: Implement runtime checks for bit manipulation
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90889
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I found the edge which is now ignored but should not be, it was one level
above what I originally tried. I have proposed a fix in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00986.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90904
Bug ID: 90904
Summary: vec assignment and copying undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61490
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
When using "build-many-glibcs checkout" to check out the source
tree, you need to specify "gcc-vcs-mainline" after "checkout" to get GCC
trunk sources checked out instead of the default of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
--- Comment #10 from Jason Duerstock ---
(I assume I don't need to run build-libraries again...)
$ ~/glibc/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py --replace-sources bmg checkout
gcc-vcs-mainline
configure.ac:80: installing 'build-aux/compile'
configure.ac:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
Bug ID: 90905
Summary: missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning a local
std::string::c_str()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61738
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
Bug ID: 90906
Summary: diagnose returning pointers to freed memory
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The separate enhancement is pr90906.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90890
--- Comment #6 from Bharat Mahajan ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> You got lucky. You gave the compiler invalid code. It can do
> anything with the code (including giving you a result that you
> may expect).
>
Ok I see. I chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90907
Bug ID: 90907
Summary: Binary crashes if both asm() and __thread are used in
the same code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #25 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Tue Jun 18 05:08:02 2019
New Revision: 272405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add one target hook predict_doloop_p, it return true if we can predict i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82182
--- Comment #2 from Lauri Kasanen ---
It may be a few weeks before I can test newer gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90907
Fujimoto Seiji changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Fujimoto Seij
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
> compiling both functions in the samne translatin unit suppresses the warning
> for f0.
It is quite common for extra code to change inlining decisions. You still get
the warning at -O3.
> const char *p = "d
95 matches
Mail list logo
