https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #12 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That code was called by combine pass but fail to match.
pr newpat
(set (reg:DI 125 [ l ])
(xor:DI (and:DI (xor:DI (reg/v:DI 120 [ l ])
(reg:DI 127))
(const_int 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96825
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #15 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98527
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Does the problem persist?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target|sparc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99984
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cc863ca8f48662e9c9339710fa303587479bf71
commit r11-8075-g8cc863ca8f48662e9c9339710fa303587479bf71
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99984
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||cris-elf
--- Comment #8 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99360
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I suggest to revert.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
fu-be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
Bug ID: 99985
Summary: [11 Regression] bits/hashtable.h:483:9: error: body of
‘constexpr’ function ... not a return-statement since
g:1cbba49e3417d9b0661e70301d6fb7a7f52fd360
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99817
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d31f485dedc86773152d0384bc6ba5583b259a42
commit r11-8076-gd31f485dedc86773152d0384bc6ba5583b259a42
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99433
--- Comment #7 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you for the quick analysis!
> views::drop(E, F) is specified to be expression-equivalent to the braced
> init ranges::drop_view{E, F}
Is not completely true, right? A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98527
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96825
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have not benchmark results from Power, but the reported regression has been
fixed/mitigated on Zens, see:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=275.407.0&plot.1=397.407.0&plot.2=294.407.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98601
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50534
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50534&action=edit
gcc11-pr98601.patch
Untested fix.
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210409 (experimental) [master revision
96292c3e343:4e14cad25b9:019a922063f26784d5a070d9198a1f937b8a8343] (GCC)
[600] %
[600] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
[601] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[602] %
[602] % wc
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210409 (experimental) [master revision
96292c3e343:4e14cad25b9:019a922063f26784d5a070d9198a1f937b8a8343] (GCC)
[749] %
[749] %
[749] % gcctk -O2 -S -o O2.s small.c
[750] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[751
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|9.4
Summary|[10 regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99988
Bug ID: 99988
Summary: aarch64: GCC generates excessive consecutive bti j
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
Bug ID: 99989
Summary: [11 regression] False maybe-uninitialized warning
breaks bootstrap on riscv64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] |[10/11 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
--- Comment #9 from Lewis Baker ---
> In terms of the standard do you think this is technically undefined behaviour?
Yes, I think this is something that Gor was looking into as a wording issue
that could do with some clarification.
I think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99988
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 9.3.1
--- Comment #1 from Alex Cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Aside: is there a good reason those packages use -std=c++11? Did they just add
it ten years ago to enable "new" C++ features? Because now they're *disabling*
features by not using the compiler's default -st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bet they want C++11 or newer and aren't aware there could be compilers that
would default to C++14, C++17 or C++20...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can still make it short circuit (and so not instantiate class templates
unnecessarily) like this:
#if __cplusplus <= 201402L
return __and_<__bool_constant<_No_realloc>,
is_not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This isn't the first PR where wide_ints are a problem for -W*uninitialized
> warnings. The primary problem is that generic_wide_int default ctor does
> nothing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] gcc-10 |[10 Regression] gcc-10 has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I don't think we want any initialization unless we invent an explicitely
> "uninitialized" state. Note that wide-int storage is large - I suppose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps just:
--- gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:38.892233156 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c2021-04-09 12:46:27.466847728 +0200
@@ -124,9 +124,8 @@ public:
alloca_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So perhaps just:
> --- gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:38.892233156 +0100
> +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c 2021-04-09 12:46:27.46684772
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99986
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think this is a duplicate of PR99776 since I can't reproduce with this fix
> in.
Thanks for looking into it, Richard!
Would you mind also checking the few tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99988
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Bug ID: 0
Summary: Crash in GCC-11/gimplify
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Bug ID: 1
Summary: Missed inlining of IPA SRA clone
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99862
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #0)
> [561] % gcctk -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=gcctk
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99862
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #1)
> [578] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
> [579] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
> [580] %
> [580] % wc O1.s O3.s
> 22 43 410 O1.s
> 37 77 682 O3.s
> 59 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Bug ID: 2
Summary: Diagnose C++11 constexpr body that isn't just return
even in uninstantiated templates
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99862
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #2)
> [659] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
> [660] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
> [661] %
> [661] % wc O1.s O3.s
> 40 86 599 O1.s
> 68 138 1047 O3.s
> 108 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99866
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 99866, which changed state.
Bug 99866 Summary: gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h: 2 * passing structs ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99866
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Bug ID: 3
Summary: Inlining limit on stack growth behaves oddly
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99862
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #2)
> > [659] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
> > [660] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
> > [661] %
> > [661] % wc O1.s O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99862
--- Comment #9 from Zhendong Su ---
> For the future please open separate bugs for separate testcases.
Thanks, Richard; will do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #2 from Karine EM ---
GCC is from GitHub with this version bc21277 (was: Daily bump.)
I compiled gcc-11 with gcc-10 (this gcc-10: gcc (Ubuntu 10.1.0-2ubuntu1~18.04)
10.1.0)
With cmake version 3.13.4, gmp-6.1.0, isl-0.18, mpc-1.0.3, m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99985
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40ccb47b505b528244ee305923681c0ae3b6f4d5
commit r11-8085-g40ccb47b505b528244ee305923681c0ae3b6f4d5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99830
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> In normal insns such clobbers would be rejected by recog, but for
> DEBUG_INSNs we don't have strict validity tests, but guess we need to throw
> away at lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|Crash in GCC-11/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99830
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > In normal insns such clobbers would be rejected by recog, but for
> > DEBUG_INSNs we don't have strict validi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99830
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> In the end on the actual instruction the clobber is optimized away
That is a very serious bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f44a2713da7ea8f5abde5b3a98ddf1ab97b9175a
commit r11-8087-gf44a2713da7ea8f5abde5b3a98ddf1ab97b9175a
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #69 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a54db29387c4e936ab99499bf4d3e1649e92800
commit r11-8088-g9a54db29387c4e936ab99499bf4d3e1649e92800
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Bug ID: 4
Summary: internal compiler error: trying to capture 'f' in
instantiation of generic lambda within
constraints_satisfied_p
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks for a testcase, it makes things easier to debug indeed :)
The problem is that openmp uses declare_vairant_alt on symbols to make them
special definitions, but the definition flag is not set. That makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50536&action=edit
gcc11-pr0.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
I'll revert on gcc-10 and then backport the revert to gcc-9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #31 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
The previous patch skips the affected tests for now, on the basis
that this PR is open and tracking the problem. The bug is very
much still there though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |12.0
Assignee|rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> Thanks for a testcase, it makes things easier to debug indeed :)
> The problem is that openmp uses declare_vairant_alt on symbols to make them
> special definitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99433
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to gcc-bugs from comment #7)
> Thank you for the quick analysis!
>
> > views::drop(E, F) is specified to be expression-equivalent to the braced
> > init ranges::drop_view{E, F}
>
> Is not co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Bug ID: 5
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL:
17_intro/headers/c++1998/49745.cc with -std=gnu++20
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99830
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So more details. The i2 insn is:
(insn 16 15 17 2 (set (zero_extract:DI (subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 103 [ f ]) 0)
(const_int 8 [0x8])
(const_int 16 [0x10]))
(subreg:DI (reg:SI 96 [ _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
C++11 says:
"its function-body shall be = delete, = default, or a compound-statement that
contains only
— null statements,
— static_assert-declarations
— typedef declarations and alias-declarations that do no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 50537
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50537&action=edit
WIP Fix
Here's an approach that moves the mark_used calls closer to where the functions
are actually used. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps copy and tweak massage_constexpr_body and constexpr_fn_retval
such that it doesn't break_out_target_exprs but just return
non-NULL/error_mark_node on RETURN_EXPR and does something sensible for
DEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Bug ID: 6
Summary: [10 Regression] r10-9673 failed to build
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
Slightly more reduced:
template struct A {
using type = T;
static const bool value = false;
};
enum E { e0 = __is_enum(E), e1 = A::value };
Compiled with -std=c++11 -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99983
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Bug ID: 7
Summary: Missed optimisation with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
1 - 100 of 265 matches
Mail list logo
