https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89296, which changed state.
Bug 89296 Summary: [7 Regression] tree copy-header masking uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89296
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89296
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right. Just because all your code examples use "template" and "private" doesn't
make them related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947
Bug ID: 90947
Summary: Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90948
Bug ID: 90948
Summary: Polymorphic intrinsic assignment...
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Bug ID: 90949
Summary: [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maister at archlinux dot us
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Yes, the problem is that triviality isn't sufficient to decide whether the
> transformation can be enabled. I think we need to check whether the type
> has a tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90859
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jun 20 11:56:50 2019
New Revision: 272506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90937
* trans-ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE: |[7/8/9 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
And fixed by r270319.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #6 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
Since we all agree that the current behavior is undesirable and since Jakub
proposes a possible solution, would it be reasonable to reopen this?
For large (multi-hour) test suites, it would be mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 20 12:22:25 2019
New Revision: 272507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272507&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89873
* g++.dg/cpp1y/noexcept1.C: New test.
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90490
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I have a patch now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to sshannin from comment #6)
> Since we all agree that the current behavior is undesirable and since Jakub
> proposes a possible solution, would it be reasonable to reopen this?
>
> For large (multi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
this patch makes Fortran logicals to become C unsigned types of
corresponding size. I think it is better than making them signed
because the globbing will affect aliasing within Fortran programs as
well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90939
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
The assert is there since the original implementation of IPA known
bits propagation which was done for integers only. Some two months
later Prathamesh replaced propagation of alignment with moving
alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90770
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jun 20 14:17:57 2019
New Revision: 272509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Skip libstdc++ debug build in early bootstrap stages
As mentioned in PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90950
Bug ID: 90950
Summary: OpenMP clause handling rejecting references to
incomplete types in templates
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90490
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig ---
(
> this patch makes Fortran logicals to become C unsigned types of
> corresponding size. I think it is better than making them signed
> because the globbing will affect aliasing within Fortran programs as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jun 20 15:30:54 2019
New Revision: 272511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Generate standard floating point scalar operation patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The root cause of the problem is that initializer_zerop (elt_init) doesn't
differentiate between the empty string and a null pointer in the same
initializer list and returns true for the CONSTRUCTOR ({"", 0}).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88828
Bug 88828 depends on bug 54855, which changed state.
Bug 54855 Summary: Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar operation on
vector element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 20 15:37:35 2019
New Revision: 272512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87512
* g++.dg/cpp1z/inline-var7.C: New test.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is because .MASK_LOAD/.MASK_STORE calls are supported just for vectors.
The way it is done is that during ifcvt those internal calls are added to the
.LOOP_VECTORIZED guarded loops, and either we succ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90915
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I did experiment with putting the range checks in *both* places, the
std::rotate function and the std::__rotate helpers it calls. But there's still
no guarantee you won't get a "bad" combination of definit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> Ugh. Looked at this briefly. AFAIK, the following is legal code:
>
> program foo
>implicit none
>real, target :: a
>real, pointer :: b => a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561
--- Comment #5 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
With the new release of gcc 9, I am seeing new occurences of this issue. I am
trying to put a statement _string[len] = 0; after the strncpy to silence the
warning, but still it triggers sometimes. Is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Precisely. I didn't see a helper to set pt.null to 1/true, but it's trivial
enough to add one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Łukasz Kucharski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luk32 at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|WAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The simple patch that fixed the warning was never approved. Here's my last
attempt to get approval:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01415.html
It too stalled, much to my frustration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951
Bug ID: 90951
Summary: error initializing a constexpr array of a struct with
const member
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65921
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Thu Jun 20 20:26:39 2019
New Revision: 272520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/65921: Add forgotten PR number to ChangeLog
2019-06-14 Janne B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Summary|[9/10 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The compilation error was introduced in r209934 (gcc 5.0.0) via:
PR c++/60980
* init.c (build_value_init): Don't try to call an array constructor.
Prior to that GCC fails with an ICE on this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
That aside, I haven't given up and plan to post an updated patch for this bug
for GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67898
--- Comment #2 from Richard Smith ---
(Clang trunk now accepts both testcases.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
In response to c#5.
The difference is when you use a bool for cleanup, it has to be promoted at the
recursive call call to walk(). That's just enough to change the decision
between using tail call (which s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90952
Bug ID: 90952
Summary: Costs of moves are used for costs of RTL expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 20 21:39:43 2019
New Revision: 272524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/86587
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 20 22:06:36 2019
New Revision: 272525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68265
* g++.dg/parse/error62.C: New test.
Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 20 22:16:29 2019
New Revision: 272526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77632
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79781
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> Author: kargl
> Date: Thu Jun 20 22:16:29 2019
> New Revision: 272526
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272526&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2019-06-20 St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79781
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 20 22:35:34 2019
New Revision: 272527
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272527&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79781
* g++.dg/ext/goto1.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79781
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2019-06-20
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed with gcc version 10.0.0 20190620 (experimental) (GCC):
88853.C: In instantiation of ‘class yp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
sshannin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 20 23:15:32 2019
New Revision: 272529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.2
--- Comment #15 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69398
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69398
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 20 23:27:13 2019
New Revision: 272530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 20 23:39:29 2019
New Revision: 272531
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272531&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 20 23:50:54 2019
New Revision: 272532
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 21 00:01:23 2019
New Revision: 272533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272533&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87907
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 21 00:12:37 2019
New Revision: 272534
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272534&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87907
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 21 00:24:53 2019
New Revision: 272539
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272539&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90002
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 21 00:38:13 2019
New Revision: 272540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90002
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 21 00:54:28 2019
New Revision: 272541
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272541&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
One more test-case:
$ gcc /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70177.c -fwrapv
-mavx5124fmaps -O3
during RTL pass: expand
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70177.c: In functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90950
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jun 21 06:46:45 2019
New Revision: 272543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90950
* semantics.c (finish_omp_clauses): Don't rej
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 20, 2019 6:42:10 PM GMT+02:00, "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920
>
>--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>I did experiment with putti
99 matches
Mail list logo