[Bug c/91193] [8 regression] ICE on invalid: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘declaration’ (function_decl) in grokdeclarator, at c/c-decl.c:5956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91193 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug ipa/91194] New: A suspicious condition in recursive_inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91194 Bug ID: 91194 Summary: A suspicious condition in recursive_inlining Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ip

[Bug preprocessor/91192] [9/10 regression] non-deterministic ICE on invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug c/91193] [8/9/10 regression] ICE on invalid: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘declaration’ (function_decl) in grokdeclarator, at c/c-decl.c:5956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91193 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c/91193] [8/9/10 regression] ICE on invalid: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘declaration’ (function_decl) in grokdeclarator, at c/c-decl.c:5956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91193 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Actually, I have some 3.2 version and that ICEs too (branched in 2002): pr91193.c:2: `a' redeclared as different kind of symbol pr91193.c:1: previous declaration of `a' pr91193.c:2: confused by earlier error

[Bug c/91193] [8/9/10 regression] ICE on invalid: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘declaration’ (function_decl) in grokdeclarator, at c/c-decl.c:5956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91193 --- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Why do you think this is a regression? > /usr/src/gcc-test/obj/gcc/cc1.9 pr91193.c > a > > pr91193.c:2: error: ‘a’ redeclared as different kind of sym

[Bug tree-optimization/91191] vrp and boolean arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91191 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 46610 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46610&action=edit untested patch

[Bug tree-optimization/91191] vrp and boolean arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91191 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/91190] [10 Regression] ICE on valid code: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.c:137

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91190 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/91195] New: [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Bug ID: 91195 Summary: [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474] Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/53633] __attribute__((naked)) should disable -Wreturn-type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633 --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Thu Jul 18 08:22:50 2019 New Revision: 273568 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273568&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix -Wreturn-type for static naked functions in C This

[Bug rtl-optimization/91137] [7/8/9/10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137 --- Comment #10 from bin cheng --- Author: amker Date: Thu Jul 18 08:38:09 2019 New Revision: 273570 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273570&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/91137 * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (struct i

[Bug rtl-optimization/91154] [10 Regression] 456.hmmer regression on Haswell caused by r272922

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- One could in some awkward way also rewrite the loop to use integer SSE (so we have access to min/max), relying on zero-filling scalar moves into %xmm and then using vector integer operations. Need to split

[Bug target/86753] [9/10 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/sve/vcond_[45].c fail after recent combine patch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86753 --- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- To give a few more details: void f1 (int *x, int *y, int *z) { for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) x[i] = y[i] ? z[i] : 10; } produces: ptrue p3.s, all ... .L3: ld1

[Bug fortran/91196] New: Interface generated for proc with VALUE,OPTIONAL misses hidden is-present argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91196 Bug ID: 91196 Summary: Interface generated for proc with VALUE,OPTIONAL misses hidden is-present argument Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug target/91130] [9/10 Regression] -MF clashes with -flto on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130 --- Comment #30 from Richard Earnshaw --- Makes sense. I'm going to wait now until Joseph gets back and has had a chance to comment.

[Bug fortran/91196] Interface generated for proc with VALUE,OPTIONAL misses hidden is-present argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91196 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- Cross ref: The issue came up at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-07/msg00055.html Actually, at least the 'static' line only appears for 'containes' procedures. If they are generated ('gfc_generate_conta

[Bug rtl-optimization/91154] [10 Regression] 456.hmmer regression on Haswell caused by r272922

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- On Skylake (Coffeelake actually) with the same binary (built for Haswell), the improvement is down to 5%. On Haswell, when I just replace the second conditional move like vmovd %ebx, %xmm12

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, |

[Bug ipa/91194] A suspicious condition in recursive_inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91194 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91196] Interface generated for proc with VALUE,OPTIONAL misses hidden is-present argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91196 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- The problem is trans-type.c's gfc_get_function_type() which handles hidden strings but not the hidden is-present status of VALUE,OPTIONAL.

[Bug ipa/91194] A suspicious condition in recursive_inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91194 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- Indeed, looks like (quite unfortunate) typo. I will test patch.

[Bug libstdc++/91170] [9/10 Regression] Crash in pdns resolver

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91170 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- In the end the issue may have been caused by building with LTO.

[Bug other/91197] New: [8,9 regression] alignment test program used in perl does not work with -O2 anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91197 Bug ID: 91197 Summary: [8,9 regression] alignment test program used in perl does not work with -O2 anymore Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug tree-optimization/91198] New: GCC not generating AVX-512 compress/expand instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198 Bug ID: 91198 Summary: GCC not generating AVX-512 compress/expand instructions Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug other/91197] [8,9 regression] alignment test program used in perl does not work with -O2 anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91197 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- You are relying on undefined behaviour.

[Bug rtl-optimization/91154] [10 Regression] 456.hmmer regression on Haswell caused by r272922

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Testcase for the loop in question: void foo (int *dc, int *mc, int *tpdd, int *tpmd, int M) { int sc; int k; for (k = 1; k <= M; k++) { dc[k] = dc[k-1] + tpdd[k-1]; if ((sc = mc[k-1]

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/91154] [10 Regression] 456.hmmer regression on Haswell caused by r272922

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- With Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.md === --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md (revision 273567) +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md (working copy) @@ -

[Bug tree-optimization/91198] GCC not generating AVX-512 compress/expand instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Stubbs --- I don't believe GCC detects that operation automatically. It does support the instruction via intrinsics (builtin functions that correspond to low-level machine features). You should investigate "__builtin_i

[Bug tree-optimization/91198] GCC not generating AVX-512 compress/expand instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91198 --- Comment #2 from Moritz Kreutzer --- Sure, I should have said that I'm talking about auto vectorization. I'm aware that we could use intrinsics, but of course that'll always be our last resort for obvious reasons.

[Bug c/91199] New: In -fexcess-precision=standard mode, the warning “floating constant truncated to zero” is misleading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91199 Bug ID: 91199 Summary: In -fexcess-precision=standard mode, the warning “floating constant truncated to zero” is misleading Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug tree-optimization/91200] New: ICE on valid code at -O1: verify_ssa failed

10.0.0 20190718 (experimental) [trunk revision 273570] (GCC) [513] % [513] % gcctk -O0 small.c [514] % gcc-9.1.0 -O1 small.c [515] % [515] % gcctk -O1 small.c small.c: In function ‘main’: small.c:6:5: error: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 3 6 | int main

[Bug target/90317] [7/8/9/10] ICE for arm sha1h and wrong optimisations on sha1h/c/m/p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90317 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Thu Jul 18 15:42:13 2019 New Revision: 273574 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273574&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [patch1/2][arm][PR90317]: fix sha1 patterns This patch fi

[Bug tree-optimization/91201] New: [7~9 Regression] SIMD not generated for horizontal sum of bytes in array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201 Bug ID: 91201 Summary: [7~9 Regression] SIMD not generated for horizontal sum of bytes in array Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/90317] [7/8/9] ICE for arm sha1h and wrong optimisations on sha1h/c/m/p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90317 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc do

[Bug target/91188] strict_low_part operations do not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91188 --- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Thu Jul 18 17:17:31 2019 New Revision: 273578 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273578&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/91188 * config/i386/i386.md (*addqi_1_sl

[Bug c/91202] New: Unnecessary promotion of shift operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202 Bug ID: 91202 Summary: Unnecessary promotion of shift operands Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/91202] Unnecessary promotion of shift operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Component|c

[Bug sanitizer/91203] New: __asan_set_error_report_callback has no effect on leak messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203 Bug ID: 91203 Summary: __asan_set_error_report_callback has no effect on leak messages Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/91204] New: ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9215 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204 Bug ID: 91204 Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9215 with -O3 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/91201] [7~9 Regression] SIMD not generated for horizontal sum of bytes in array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- We unroll the loop (-fdisable-tree-cunrolli) and SLP does not handle reductions.

[Bug target/91202] Unnecessary promotion of shift operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91202 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > >does not need its operand to be promoted to int on targets that have shift > >instruction > > Yes it does as that is what C says it does ... The standard also

[Bug c/91205] New: -fstack-protector-strong -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 breaks tftpd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205 Bug ID: 91205 Summary: -fstack-protector-strong -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 breaks tftpd Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c/91206] New: -Wformat doesn't warn for %hd with char parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91206 Bug ID: 91206 Summary: -Wformat doesn't warn for %hd with char parameter Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/91206] -Wformat doesn't warn for %hd with char parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91206 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi

[Bug c/91206] -Wformat doesn't warn for %hd with char parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91206 --- Comment #2 from Nick Desaulniers --- Ah, I did file a bug for this in LLVM's issue tracker: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41467

[Bug middle-end/91205] -fstack-protector-strong -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 breaks tftpd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/91204] [10 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9215 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90101] [P0732] Error using non-type template parameter in a template template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/91204] [10 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9215 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- The vectorizer vectorizes the loop using 8-byte vectors, but then match.pd during forwprop4 optimizes: - vect__6.17_46 = _52 ^ vect__1.12_39; - vect__7.18_47 = vect__6.17_46 & vect__1.12_39; + _27 = ~_52;

[Bug tree-optimization/91204] [10 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9215 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91204 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- --- gcc/optabs.c.jj 2019-07-15 10:53:10.743205405 +0200 +++ gcc/optabs.c2019-07-19 00:38:20.271852242 +0200 @@ -2972,6 +2972,17 @@ expand_unop (machine_mode mode, optab un return target;

[Bug c++/90098] [P0732] Partial specialization of a class template with variadic parameter pack fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90098 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90099] [P0732] Partial specialization of a class template with variadic parameter pack fails after adding non-type template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90099 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90100] [P0732] Cannot write a type-trait matching non-type class template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90100 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/91207] New: Wrong code with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91207 Bug ID: 91207 Summary: Wrong code with -O3 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization As

[Bug objc/91208] New: [10 Regression] bootstrap comparison failure for objc and obj-c++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91208 Bug ID: 91208 Summary: [10 Regression] bootstrap comparison failure for objc and obj-c++ Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/91209] New: gm2 bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91209 Bug ID: 91209 Summary: gm2 bootstrap comparison failure Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other A

[Bug other/91209] gm2 bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91209 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug other/79543] Inappropriate "ld --version" checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79543 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > > (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1) > > >

[Bug c/61534] Wlogical-op should not warn when either operand comes from macro expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61534 --- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #11) > Np. It's certainly something I'd love to see fixed :/. Hopefully the next > stage1. It's a new stage1

[Bug libstdc++/91210] New: Segmentation fault in random.tcc when compiling GCC 9.1 on linux powerpc(ppc) 64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91210 Bug ID: 91210 Summary: Segmentation fault in random.tcc when compiling GCC 9.1 on linux powerpc(ppc) 64 Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug libstdc++/91210] Segmentation fault in random.tcc when compiling GCC 9.1 on linux powerpc(ppc) 64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91210 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >const size_t __log2r = std::log(__r) / std::log(2.0L); This usually means the GMP/MPFR you are using is buggy.

[Bug middle-end/91205] -fstack-protector-strong -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 breaks tftpd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205 --- Comment #2 from Ricardo Ribalda --- Hi Jakub I can agree that I do not like the code style and I have already send a patch for that. On the other hand is a bit frustrating that mangling a bit the struct, or using memcpy is enough to make it

[Bug middle-end/91205] -fstack-protector-strong -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 breaks tftpd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205 --- Comment #3 from Ricardo Ribalda --- (and thanks for your fast response :) )

[Bug libstdc++/91210] Segmentation fault in random.tcc when compiling GCC 9.1 on linux powerpc(ppc) 64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91210 --- Comment #2 from Martin Marko --- I am using the versions provided by ./contrib/download_prerequisites and build them with gcc, is there anything in particular to look for?

[Bug other/91197] [8,9 regression] alignment test program used in perl does not work with -O2 anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91197 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-* Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/91197] [8,9 regression] alignment test program used in perl does not work with -O2 anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91197 --- Comment #3 from Rolf Eike Beer --- It returns the alignment rather than printing. 4 is the correct return code.

[Bug other/91197] [8,9 regression] alignment test program used in perl does not work with -O2 anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91197 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91205] -fstack-protector-strong -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 breaks tftpd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91205 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- _FORTIFY_SOURCE=1 checks for all covered functions just whether they don't overflow whole objects, while _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 goes for a subset of functions (e.g. those str*/stp* but not mem*) further and requir

[Bug c++/90098] [P0732] Partial specialization of a class template with variadic parameter pack fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90098 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jul 19 06:52:47 2019 New Revision: 273591 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273591&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/90098 - partial specialization and class non-type parms. A

[Bug c++/90099] [P0732] Partial specialization of a class template with variadic parameter pack fails after adding non-type template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90099 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jul 19 06:52:47 2019 New Revision: 273591 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273591&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/90098 - partial specialization and class non-type parms. A

[Bug c++/90101] [P0732] Error using non-type template parameter in a template template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jul 19 06:52:47 2019 New Revision: 273591 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273591&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/90098 - partial specialization and class non-type parms. A