https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94727
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e62a820d686d1fa97a9eefdc65ca07d8f96ac9f4
commit r10-8006-ge62a820d686d1fa97a9eefdc65ca07d8f96ac9f4
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94813
Bug ID: 94813
Summary: [10 regression] 'libgomp.fortran/use_device_ptr-1.f90'
offloading execution test regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94813
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-28
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
LGTM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94813
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94813
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94771
--- Comment #4 from Bence Szabó ---
Interesting, the t.f syntax is not allowed anymore even with MSVC:
https://godbolt.org/z/YCK-mv
msvc also doesn't list under extensions_
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/microsoft-extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
My benchmarking setup is currently gone so unfortunately no, not easily. I'll
be re-measuring everything on a different computer with a slightly different
CPU model soon, so after that I guess I could. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #23)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #20)
> > Thanks a lot for reverting, Thomas, shall I further reduce the reproducer,
> > or can you work with it now?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
At least there is no time pressure at the moment ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94760
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94704
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dde5ce541e3258276848aee85229a71c0e5f6965
commit r10-8007-gdde5ce541e3258276848aee85229a71c0e5f6965
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> My benchmarking setup is currently gone so unfortunately no, not easily.
> I'll be re-measuring everything on a different computer with a slightly
> different C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, we can't block GCC 10 release indefinitely, we are already behind the usual
schedule. We need to resolve the C++ ABI issues and get the release out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> No, we can't block GCC 10 release indefinitely, we are already behind the
> usual schedule. We need to resolve the C++ ABI issues and get the release
> out.
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There isn't, there's a segfault in your program. That is caused by assuming
that the global streams have been constructed already, when it is clearly
documented that the construction order is unspecified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94811
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Each extra noexcept is one more chance to get things wrong
And slows down compilation due to instantiating the trait class templates
(which G++ was doing even wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94811
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #0)
> So it should be possible to make the std::tuple constructor and
Isn't that already done?
> std::make_tuple noexcept when the arguments have noexce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94725
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #25)
> Ok, Simon and I try our best, working independently, me reducing the
> existing case further, and he tries to write a small reproducer from scratch.
Thanks a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> > My benchmarking setup is currently gone so unfortunately no, not easily.
> > I'll be re-measuring everything on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34f6b14ff33e0c64b3a4a1a2cd871df715d69151
commit r10-8009-g34f6b14ff33e0c64b3a4a1a2cd871df715d69151
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94474
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Burgess ---
Bernd,
Not a problem, always happy to expand on things. This might get a
little long, but hopefully it should give you an idea what I think is
wrong.
I have not updated the reproducer, I don't know why I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
> Oh, and bugfixing requires to first understand the bug. Especially for
> performance related issues understanding what goes wrong is important.
> I see no analysis b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94814
Bug ID: 94814
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code
'const_int', have 'reg' in output_3367, at
config/aarch64/atomics.md:755
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48392
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48392&action=edit
3rd reproducer, down to 600 kb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #29 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Is this now small enough?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
Maybe we could
- save the VFP registers as needed by default
- emit a warning "IRQ handler 'foo' saves VFP registers because it is not a
leaf function. If you know none of the callees will clobber the VFP r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
Bug ID: 94815
Summary: Abusive -Wrestrict warning with sprintf
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517
Vincent Riviere changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent.riviere at freesbee
dot fr
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
--- Comment #8 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544716.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94808
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-28
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94816
Bug ID: 94816
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in
ana::region_model::add_region_for_type)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94518
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:034dfe065033a846761b0a5c35fc86023bee1874
commit r8-10223-g034dfe065033a846761b0a5c35fc86023bee1874
Author: Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94814
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:034dfe065033a846761b0a5c35fc86023bee1874
commit r8-10223-g034dfe065033a846761b0a5c35fc86023bee1874
Author: Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94814
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94817
Bug ID: 94817
Summary: ICE in add_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:392
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94804
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
So, things like
uint64_t swap64(uint64_t x)
{
uint64_t a = __builtin_bswap32(x);
x >>= 32;
a <<= 32;
return __builtin_bswap32(x) | a;
}
Having similar problems with useless movs is from th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94818
Bug ID: 94818
Summary: GCC emits dead bodies of functions whose all calls
have been eliminated by optimisations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94739
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eedc73a224df61694fe4802ddec8eb9ad1822f32
commit r10-8010-geedc73a224df61694fe4802ddec8eb9ad1822f32
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Apr 28 05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94819
Bug ID: 94819
Summary: [10 Regression] Inherited and constrained constructors
are "ambiguous" even if they aren't Pt. 2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94739
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
>
> > Shall I raise this to P1 so it prevents gcc-10 release?
>
> Definitely not. Setting priority is the release managers job, and btw.
> bug priority is mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
--- Comment #4 from Geoffrey Casper ---
Wouldn't it make more sense to initialize global objects on a per need basis?
So the constructors of unused global objects would never be called and there is
no ambiguity of when constructors are called. I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94819
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
A slightly more reduced example:
```c++
#include
template
struct alphabet_tuple_base
{
template
requires std::is_same_v
constexpr alphabet_tuple_base(component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This is made more complex due to the fact that the existence of the top 16 D
registers depends on the hardware you have, so saving them might require a d32
variant of the ISA, but we can't (quickly) tell i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94820
Bug ID: 94820
Summary: pr94780.c fails with ICE on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94447
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
commit r10-8012-g78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94639
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
commit r10-8012-g78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94754
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
commit r10-8012-g78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94732
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
commit r10-8012-g78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94820
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94780
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94754
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94732
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94447
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
r10-8012-g78b9783774bfd3540f38f5b1e3c7fc9f719653d7 removes the false positive,
but we should still handle CONSTRUCTOR tree nodes. Keeping this open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94639
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94714
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94821
Bug ID: 94821
Summary: aarch64: ICE in walk_body at gcc/tree-nested.c:713
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94821
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94820
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94822
Bug ID: 94822
Summary: ICE in lto with option -Warray-bounds and
-fno-use-linker-plugin
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94811
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #0)
> > So it should be possible to make the std::tuple constructor and
>
> Isn't that already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #30 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thomas, can you work with this now!?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94822
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
Summary|ICE in lto with o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94816
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94817
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 94815, which changed state.
Bug 94815 Summary: Abusive -Wrestrict warning with sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This bug is different than PR94815 because here the warning code should be able
to determine that the sprintf call cannot overlap based on the sizes of the
array arguments that put an upper bound on the length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I should add: it's helpful to make use of attribute alloc_size on allocation
functions like myalloc to let GCC determine the size of the allocated objects.
The size can then be used as an upper bound on the le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94711
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthew Malcomson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5bff8af0a68d039e1586087639c86d6931c9b81
commit r10-8013-ga5bff8af0a68d039e1586087639c86d6931c9b81
Author: Matthew Malcomson
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94711
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Malcomson ---
This has been fixed by.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544625.html
In the email linked above I mentioned another problem using `-mabi=apcs-gnu`.
Since that ABI is obsolete (Kyrylo p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94711
Matthew Malcomson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
If we consider the initial testcase, it doesn't clobber any FP register
directly, but the compiler inserts a call to memcpy which does.
So IIUC your 1st suggestion, it would mean:
- save no FP register in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94823
Bug ID: 94823
Summary: modulo arithmetic bug in random.tcc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93654
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 94815, which changed state.
Bug 94815 Summary: Abusive -Wrestrict warning with sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93654
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Please DO disable -fcf-protection in the kernel build. We are enabling
CET for the user space first. The kernel CET will be the next.
I am enclosing a proposal to make -fcf-protection compatible with retpoline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
Vincent Riviere changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
well, __aeabi_memcpy is required not to clobber the FP state. Sadly, GCC does
not know about it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94824
Bug ID: 94824
Summary: Failure to optimize with __builtin_bswap32 as well as
with a function recognized as such
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa988998be8f85334665a6b049d5d9139408c250
commit r9-8550-gaa988998be8f85334665a6b049d5d9139408c250
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa988998be8f85334665a6b049d5d9139408c250
commit r9-8550-gaa988998be8f85334665a6b049d5d9139408c250
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.4
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 79585, which changed state.
Bug 79585 Summary: spurious -Wunused-variable on a pointer with attribute
unused in function template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94811
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see how that could conform to the standard's requirements.
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
