https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #6)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> > > In this case, the second load is conditional on the first load mask,
> > > which
> > > means it's alre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115723
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to edison from comment #13)
> (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #11)
> > The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:286cda3461d6f5ce7d911d3f26bd4975
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115659
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56670281c6db19d75c7b63e38971ab84681b245c
commit r15-1763-g56670281c6db19d75c7b63e38971ab84681b245c
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm aarch64
--- Comment #1 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115741
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So this is the VMAT_CONTIGUOUS_REVERSE case. I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
The fix is OK for mainline, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115729
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
> rejects-valid
You meant accepts-invalid?
Anyway, constexpr makes it consistent, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107432
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115742
Bug ID: 115742
Summary: MacOS Monterey : /usr/include not found
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115742
--- Comment #1 from bug-reports.delphin at laposte dot net ---
Created attachment 58555
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58555&action=edit
What configure dsipalys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115743
Bug ID: 115743
Summary: libstdc++: pretty printer is installed in wrong
location on cross compiled i686|x86_64-w64-mingw32
target
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115725
--- Comment #14 from Robin Dapp ---
Thanks Kito. In addition, I asked Daniel to have a look into the vmv.s.x
policy handling. From what I saw it is special in that it currently always
uses undisturbed and doesn't observe the specified policy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115742
--- Comment #2 from bug-reports.delphin at laposte dot net ---
NB make.log too big. So, final message (botom of make.log) is :
warning: unknown warning option '-Wconditionally-supported'
[-Wunknown-warning-option]
warning: unknown warning option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115744
Bug ID: 115744
Summary: [C++26] P2747R2 - constexpr placement new
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115745
Bug ID: 115745
Summary: [C++26] P0963R3 - Structured binding declaration as a
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115745
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=115739
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> The fix is OK for mainline, thanks!
Thanks Eric! btw, a formal patch was sent at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/656136.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115746
Bug ID: 115746
Summary: [C++26] P2963R3 - Ordering of constraints involving
fold expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
Bug ID: 115747
Summary: [C++26] P3144R2 - Deleting a pointer to an incomplete
type should be ill-formed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115745
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58557
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58557&action=edit
gcc15-pr115745.patch
Untested implementation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115748
Bug ID: 115748
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-pr70509.c
SIGILL with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39e679e25deca32e73870f7f7a9c4f2c108d4a5e
commit r15-1766-g39e679e25deca32e73870f7f7a9c4f2c108d4a5e
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115709
--- Comment #3 from mjr19 at cam dot ac.uk ---
Created attachment 58558
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58558&action=edit
Demo of effect of vperm rearrangement
I still believe that my code is correct. To make what I propose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
Bug ID: 115749
Summary: Missed BMI2 optimization on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115733
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 58559
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58559&action=edit
proposed patch
AVR: target/115733 - Improve __memx address handling.
Allow CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P addresses in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115750
Bug ID: 115750
Summary: [14/15 regression] Emacs fails to build on HPPA since
r14-4426-g0ee3266b3dec4d
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115750
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
FWIW, I bisected with:
```
# build gcc
[...]
# build emacs
emacs_build=$(mktemp -d)
fatal cd "${emacs_build}"
CC="${prefix}"/bin/gcc CXX="${prefix}"/bin/g++
/home/sam/git/emacs/emacs-29.3/configure
CC="${prefix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115732
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Created attachment 58553 [details]
> Draft patch
>
> Very hackish patch that sets the character length of the selector at the
> beginning of the associate block if the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115748
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115723
--- Comment #15 from edison ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to edison from comment #13)
> > (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #11)
> > > The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener
> > > :
> > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49058fecbfd09a3354064e7d695b4a1056ce7547
commit r15-1768-g49058fecbfd09a3354064e7d695b4a1056ce7547
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #1 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
I played a bit more with my C/C++ code snippet and managed to further simplify
it. The GCC performance issue seems to be mostly caused by GCC producing worse
assembly than Clang for the integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115742
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115723
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 58561
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58561&action=edit
patch
I have attached it as a patch for your convenience. You can apply it to a
source tree with the 'patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||X86_64
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #3 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This seems like a tuning issue. In that gcc thinks the shifts and stuff is
> faster than mulx.
>
> What happens if you do -march=native?
>
> Does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115750
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||pa
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #4 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
One possible explanation for why GCC's current integer division by a constant
assembly sequence was chosen back in the day (I guess one or two decades ago)
is that GCC's current assembly sequen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
Bug ID: 115751
Summary: ICE building 521.wrf_r
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
force_reg (mode=mode@entry=E_V8SFmode, x=x@entry=0x75f4a4a0)
at /space/rguenther/src/gcc-autopar_devel/gcc/explow.cc:688
688 if (REG_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
This is splitting
(insn 5525 5518 5526 377 (set (reg:V8SF 10674)
(ior:V8SF (and:V8SF (vec_duplicate:V8SF (mem/u/c:SF (symbol_ref/u:DI
("*.LC136") [flags 0x2]) [0 S4 A32]))
(reg:V8S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
Bug ID: 115752
Summary: [loongarch -O1] ICE: maximum number of generated
reload insns per insn achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #1 from chenglulu ---
test.c
extern long double test1 (long double);
extern long double test2 (long double);
long double
__ieee754_y1l (long double x, long double xx,
long double z, long double p)
{
if (xx <= 2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #2 from chenglulu ---
I have one place that I don't understand, and the description of the
TARGET_HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK is as follows:
This hook returns true if it is permissible to store a value of mode mode in
hard
register number re
er
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-1762-20240702001736-g0b4fd672bf0-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240702 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104265
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note the SLP discovery opportunity is from the "reduction" PHI to the
return which merges control flow to a zero/one flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115741
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9bd51351c175d345b8a9b3c19ba49ba358940272
commit r15-1783-g9bd51351c175d345b8a9b3c19ba49ba358940272
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-12-21 00:00:00 |2024-7-2
--- Comment #15 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lin1.hu at intel dot com
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115745
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Even with 'call omp_set_num_threads(8)' added, 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_1.f90'
still takes ~1 min to execute with working directory on NFS, compared to almost
instantaneous via local disk. (I've not obser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115746
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115744
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115744
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58563&action=edit
gcc15-pr115744-wip.patch
Untested WIP patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
bar.cppm:4:20: error: conflicting declaration of ‘void foo()’ in module ‘bar’
4 | export inline void foo() noexcept;
|^~~
In file included from bar.cppm:2:
someheader.hpp:1:13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115754
Bug ID: 115754
Summary: C++26 ICE on constexpr new
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115754
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.1.0, 15.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115744
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Untested WIP patch.
In the conversion lval change, I'd think we want vc_discard for conversion to
void, and to pass through whatever lval for VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #9 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> bar.cppm:4:20: error: conflicting declaration of ‘void foo()’ in module ‘bar’
> 4 | export inline void foo() noexcept;
> |^~~
> In file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115754
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Agreed, with the adjustment I commented on 115744.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58557|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115724
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
The analyzer *does* try to handle error() and error_at_line() from GNU's
non-standard ; see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/analyzer/kf.cc;h=4213b89ac9fb4ff11994cf2c35f15a281be3b024;hb=HEAD#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115750
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
The bisection result is puzzling. The linux MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT define
in pa32-linux.h is replaced by the one in pa.h by the commit. As far as
I know, the malloc alignment for hppa-linux has always be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do you mean something like:
@@ -4114,6 +4114,14 @@ build_vec_delete_1 (location_t loc, tree
if (!COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type))
{
+ if (cxx_dialect > cxx23)
+ {
+ if ((complain & tf_erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
I think we want parallel changes for the vec and non-vec cases.
I agree that the diagnostic message needs to be different for C++26, just that
the C++26 diagnostic should also be affected by -Wno-delete-inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> I think we want parallel changes for the vec and non-vec cases.
Of course, left those out for brevity.
> I agree that the diagnostic message needs to be differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> > bar.cppm:4:20: error: conflicting declaration of ‘void foo()’ in module
> > ‘bar’
> > 4 | export inline void foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Almost, but permerror_opt instead of checking the flag directly.
And actually I think cxx_incomplete_type_inform is enough, rather than
cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #11 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> > > bar.cppm:4:20: error: conflicting declaration of ‘void foo()’ in module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #12 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> > > bar.cppm:4:20: error: conflicting declaration of ‘void foo()’ in module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ed, ping again, will you post this to gcc-patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58560|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58564|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115724
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
glib'c bits/error.h has:
/* If we know the function will never return make sure the compiler
realizes that, too. */
__extern_always_inline void
error (int __status, int __errnum, const char *__format, .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
> The question is still how this library could work. The same simply
> absolutely conflicts. Unless the standard allows inline to be discarded
> across modules I don't see how this could work.
It works bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Eric,
Just threw this into my tester. Figure ~90 minutes to get back the cross
results.
I assume that if we go forward that you'll handle putting together a regression
test since it's Ada source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115724
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Posted to mailing lists:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-July/244257.html
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2024-July/157942.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
--- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 58567
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58567&action=edit
proposed patch
Here's my proposed patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115188
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d04c5537f5ae4a3acd3f5135347d7e2d8c218811
commit r15-1786-gd04c5537f5ae4a3acd3f5135347d7e2d8c218811
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115093
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115747
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
> Updated patch. Had to guard return error_mark_node for the non-SFINAE case
> on !flag_permissive, otherwise it triggers an ICE (statement parsing into
> error_mark_node without seen_error ()).
Hmm, I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115068
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114996
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114988
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #13)
> > The question is still how this library could work. The same simply
> > absolutely conflicts. Unless the standard allows inline to be discarded
> > across modules
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
