https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-04
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102464
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:22ce7382fccc15ce2355306b3f5be7afc00f81f4
commit r12-4881-g22ce7382fccc15ce2355306b3f5be7afc00f81f4
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101989
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc9c8e5f8af08c513a4a4c329c50ba6559ff6d5c
commit r12-4882-gbc9c8e5f8af08c513a4a4c329c50ba6559ff6d5c
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71617
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68891
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Here is the output from clang++:
error: cannot specify any part of a return type in the declaration of a
conversion function; use a typedef to declare a conversion to 'double (&)[3]'
% clang++ --versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103077
Bug ID: 103077
Summary: This flag is enabled by default at -O3 and by
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-04
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103078
Bug ID: 103078
Summary: ICE canonical types differ for identical types since
r12-1822-gf9c80eb12c58126a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103078
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
@Marek: Can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103063
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103074
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
So a
_Bool EitherIsSubset (unsigned long v0, unsigned long v1)
{
return (v0 & v1) == v0 || (v0 & v1) == v1;
}
is compiled to
EitherIsSubset:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movq%rdi, %rdx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-04
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071
--- Comment #2 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
EitherIsSubset() in the example calls foo or bar (but with a redundant test
that I can't get easily rid of). I agree that if you just return 0/1, the
cmp+sete+or variant is probably as good, but that'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|slp vectorizer failed to|slp vectorizer failed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102912
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7551a9957437f20254be41d396962b9ccc46cee6
commit r12-4888-g7551a9957437f20254be41d396962b9ccc46cee6
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
--enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211104 (experimental) [master r12-4879-g3fd0723f0a3] (GCC)
[603] %
[603] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[604] %
[604] % gcctk -Os small.c
[605] % timeout -s 9 10 ./a.out
Killed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102912
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -Os and -O2 |[12 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is latent though. The issue is reassociatation introduces an
unconditional use of an uninitilized vairable:
Before
if (b.1_3 != 0)
goto ; [34.00%]
else
goto ; [66.00%]
[local coun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The problem is latent though. The issue is reassociatation introduces an
> unconditional use of an uninitilized vairable:
Whoops that is not the issue here thou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> static int c() {
> if (b)
> return b;
> }
Yes, one can use the return value as long as the function returns a value.
This means, c() can be used iff b != 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
VRP2:
Predicate evaluates to: DON'T KNOW
Matching expression match.pd:1972, gimple-match.c:819
Matching expression match.pd:1975, gimple-match.c:892
Matching expression match.pd:1982, gimple-match.c:952
Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103011
--- Comment #8 from Pekka S ---
Created attachment 51734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51734&action=edit
For CPP_FOR_BUILD use $(CC_FOR_BUILD) -E instead of $(CPP).
The problem is that when $(CPP) is not defined it is set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
All right, so I would ideally use:
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" { target {
has_arch_pwr7 } } } } */
but I see the following problem with detection of the target:
78 E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103062
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb27f5e9ec3c7ab0f5c859d90c59dd4573b53d97
commit r12-4891-gbb27f5e9ec3c7ab0f5c859d90c59dd4573b53d97
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103062
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
jbeulich at suse dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at suse dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
=== BB 2
Imports: b.0_1 t_4(D)
Exports: b.0_1 t_4(D) _6
_6 : b.0_1(I) t_4(D)(I)
t_4(D) UNDEFINED
[local count: 176285970]:
b.0_1 = b;
_6 = b.0_1 | t_4(D);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I find the vrp-details dump not really useful with all the ranger
"debug" appearing _after_ the folding of stmts. Can we instead have
this somehow interleaved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d13603501680fcdbb933cb086cd01fcc39be1908
commit r12-4898-gd13603501680fcdbb933cb086cd01fcc39be1908
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Or we can alternatively merge all the case blocks into one..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103042
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 51735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51735&action=edit
patch for the undefined bit
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> === BB 2
> Im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod ---
That patch wont generally work until rangeops op1_range routines are adjusted
to deal with undefined being passed in.. I think it assumes until now that its
been trimmed out.
(In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103042
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5914a7b5c637c9007283226f200dcab8b745abc8
commit r12-4900-g5914a7b5c637c9007283226f200dcab8b745abc8
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103080
Bug ID: 103080
Summary: LTO alters the ordering of static
constructors/destructors in pass_ipa_cdtor_merge.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103042
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103080
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
The cdtor merging code is predating LTO - it is also used for collect2
path on targets w/o cdtor sections.
I guess the DECL_UID compare is not very safe things to do since it
depends on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
Bug ID: 103081
Summary: [ICE] with "using enum"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ea1ce43b6070aaa94882e8b15f3340344aaa6b2
commit r12-4903-g5ea1ce43b6070aaa94882e8b15f3340344aaa6b2
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4411622690654cdc530c6262c7115a9e15dc359
commit r12-4904-ge4411622690654cdc530c6262c7115a9e15dc359
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a9678f0b30d36ae13259ad635e175a1e24917a1
commit r12-4905-g6a9678f0b30d36ae13259ad635e175a1e24917a1
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So maybe the switchconv pass could be
> improved not to do just the linear etc. expression handling, but also
> consider code sequences that are the same except for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103080
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC there is also an older bug about CTOR/DTOR order across multiple TUs where
with -flto be behave differently than without where I said it might be nice to
preserve linker command line order (we have tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r11-5003.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed on the GCC 11 branch head and trunk. clang complains:
> clang++-11 -S t.C -std=c++20
t.C:4:9: error: expected unqualified-id
using enum Pig;
^
t.C:10:18: error: no member named 'OINK'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103082
Bug ID: 103082
Summary: [12 Regression] gcc/poly-int.h:1162:5: runtime error:
left shift of negative value -40
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103082
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
OK, I'd totally forgotten about this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103080
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #1)
> The cdtor merging code is predating LTO - it is also used for collect2
> path on targets w/o cdtor sections.
Even so, I do not see how it can work there either*** - wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
--- Comment #4 from M Welinder ---
That version of clang does not do "using enum" at all. clang 13 accepts this
code, but it has other issues with "using enum".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103083
Bug ID: 103083
Summary: Wrong code due to ipa-cp's value range propagation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103058
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Herna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103083
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong code due to ipa-cp's |[10/11/12 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103083
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
Hi,
I am testing the following to unbreak fortran.
However the real bug is that binds_to_current_def should work on whole
WPA and be independent of partitioning. I remember I had patch fixin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The expression pa->c is only valid if pa points to a valid object.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
--- Comment #5 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> The expression pa->c is only valid if pa points to a valid object.
Well, yes, you may not deref pa if it's NULL, i.e. I agree for pa->c. But is
&pa->c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3f7a2fa64f8777cb7eae1b99ff80fbe717095ac
commit r12-4914-gd3f7a2fa64f8777cb7eae1b99ff80fbe717095ac
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102961
--- Comment #3 from John Parke ---
I think the problem is caused by:
>> 0711-738 ERROR: Input file /usr/gcc-11.2.0-build/./gcc/ppc64/crtcxa_s.o:
See below:
XCOFF32 object files are not allowed in 64-bit mode.
# @multilib_flags@ is sti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
&*E is allowed for E == NULL, but I don't think this can be generalized to
&E->m.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103082
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
> Depends on||103058
>
> --- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #19 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |fortran
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #4 from Vsevolod Livinskiy ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Started with r12-4401-gfecd145359fc981b.
>
> @Vsevolod: Is it a yarpgen test-case?
Yes. I've added stencil support recently, but it was a surprise to trigg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103084
Bug ID: 103084
Summary: Accepts invalid using enum declaration with an invalid
elaborated-type-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #48 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ece90ffa9ce63b416296bd662b8117d9b538913
commit r12-4920-g1ece90ffa9ce63b416296bd662b8117d9b538913
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103084
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103085
Bug ID: 103085
Summary: [12 Regression] -fPIC and -fstack-protector-strong
broken AArch64
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:004afb984beb6efbe25f44a5857b1c27ebc2ec82
commit r12-4921-g004afb984beb6efbe25f44a5857b1c27ebc2ec82
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103079
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
Bug ID: 103086
Summary: [11/12 Regression] std::unique_ptr printer gets
confused by [[no_unique_address]] in tuple
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.1, 12.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103087
Bug ID: 103087
Summary: "using enum" possibly incorrectly accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103087
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103084
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terra at gnome dot org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103070
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103084
--- Comment #3 from M Welinder ---
I actually think gcc is right there.
http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.type.elab#nt:elaborated-enum-specifier
There are requirements for elaborated-type-specifier, but none for
elaborated-enum-specifier. It's a se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
So I think what is needed is something like this:
diff --git a/gcc/ifcvt.c b/gcc/ifcvt.c
index 017944f4f79a..1f5b9476ac2e 100644
--- a/gcc/ifcvt.c
+++ b/gcc/ifcvt.c
@@ -4341,7 +4341,8 @@ find_if_header (b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103084
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
But elaborated-enum-specifier is an elaborated-type-specifier, so
[dcl.type.elab]#6 should still apply, right?
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
