https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100170
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5485e820cd0554886af282265198c7433c64c7b9
commit r12-2521-g5485e820cd0554886af282265198c7433c64c7b9
Author: Michael Meissner
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57136
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang started to accept this code in clang 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ondrej.kolacek at centrum dot
cz
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101631
--- Comment #2 from fsb4000 at yandex dot ru ---
Sure.
$ g++ -c -std=c++20 -save-temps main.cpp
$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=C:\tools\msys64\mingw64\bin\g++.exe
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=C:/tools/msys64/mingw64/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24568
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
--- Comment #5 from Rich Newman ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> Clang 3.0 also reject this, so I am not sure whether is actually valid, but
> the repeated messages are suspicious.
>
EDG accepts it, and I can see nothing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101596
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
Formal patch has been posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576071.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96359
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96400
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96553
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-08-18 00:00:00 |2021-7-26
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tangyixuan at mail dot
dlut.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87616
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Michael Gorbovitski from comment #2)
> Slightly simplified test case (no need for double-argument template):
here is one which is valid C++98 which shows even GCC 4.1.2 has the same ICE
struct fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.2
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 96743, which changed state.
Bug 96743 Summary: ICE on flexible array in initializer list using lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 96743, which changed state.
Bug 96743 Summary: ICE on flexible array in initializer list using lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97191
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||16994
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
Build|i686-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oschmidt_do_not_send_email_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-w64-mingw32
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
I think the original asm goto case clearly remains and this is a difficult to
handle case since the label address only appears as regular input and the
goto target is statically represented in the CFG. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE when pack expansion |9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo