https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119724
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Removing the maybe_constant_init from expand_default_init speeds up the
testcase by more than 10x, but also regresses a bunch of testcases, so it's not
that simple.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119729
Bug ID: 119729
Summary: GCC does not issue a warning for in-tree building
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
wlib
--disable-gdbtk --disable-libstdcxx --enable-languages=c --disable-libssp
Thread model: single
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.1 20250411 (experimental) (GCC)
cc1 -fpreprocessed mwe.i -quiet -dumpbase mwe.i -dumpbase-ext .i
-mlittle-endian -mabi=lp64 -O2 -Wclobbered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119701
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> ... and in particular if we have a cached mce_unknown call result it means
> the call isn't sensitive to mce, and so we can reuse later when evaluating
> the cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119622
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
As another data point. It works fine with:
version=15-20250411
../gcc-$version/configure --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --prefix=$HOME/opt
--enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119725
Bug ID: 119725
Summary: std/format/debug.cc etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florian.lugou at provenrun dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119730
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention why, x0 is assigned to the x0 register but x0 is also used for
arguments and both just happen to contain zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115639
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> > ... and in particular if we have a cached mce_unknown call result it means
> > the call isn't sensitive to mce, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118502
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33b255a1aa2f21889a8cfecb7a67a63fefa19460
commit r15-9386-g33b255a1aa2f21889a8cfecb7a67a63fefa19460
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> Removing the maybe_constant_init from expand_default_init speeds up the
> testcase by more than 10x, but also regresses a bunch of testcases, so it's
> not that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119730
--- Comment #3 from Florian Lugou ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> A dup of bug 21161.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 21161 ***
I was thinking this might not have been a duplicate of bug 21161 since, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Template Specialization of |Template Specialization of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119727
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC does not issue a|configure should issue a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
Bug ID: 119731
Summary: bpf verifier failure with systemd's restrict-fs
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61076
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61076&action=edit
restrict-fs-gcc.bpf.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61077
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61077&action=edit
restrict-fs.bpf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61080
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61080&action=edit
Clang successful output on test-bpf-restrict-fs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119727
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We need something that works on other OSes too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61078&action=edit
GCC failed output on test-bpf-restrict-fs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119729
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119729
--- Comment #3 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
> If it is refusing ./configure, why not.
When doing ./configure a very ugly bug today in `configure` didn't allow me to
compile, we can just forbid this.
So if you agree I'll edit the title from "wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
<<< Unknown tree: integer_cst >>> (&raw_magic_number, 8, _17);
__t ={v} {CLOBBER(eos)};
raw_magic_number.2_18 = raw_magic_number;
_19 = (unsigned int) raw_magic_number.2_18;
magic_number = _19;
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
void f(long *a, int *b)
{
*b = *a;
}
```
Shows the difference.
propagating insn 7 into insn 8, replacing:
(set (mem:SI (reg/v/f:DI 22 [ bD.1854 ]) [2 *b_5(D)+0 S4 A32])
(subreg:SI (reg:DI 23 [ *a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119732
Bug ID: 119732
Summary: ICE (segfault) in reference_related_p(tree_node*,
tree_node*)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119725
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Note I would not call this wrong code. It might be a verifier not liking the
> produced code but the code is still correct in terms of the underlying ISA.
And i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC:
r1 = r10
r3 += r5
r1 += -16
call113
.LBE7:
r2 = *(u32 *) (r10+-16)
*(u32 *) (r10+-24) = r2
clang:
call 113
.Ltmp27:
.Ltmp28:
.loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Created attachment 61081 [details]
> try this untested patch
I had a typo:
"(register_operand (operands[0], mode)
|| reg_or_imm_operand (operands[1], ))"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
--- Comment #54 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Furthermore, if two threads call the non-const begin() concurrently on a shared
rep, they both want to make a new clone and release their reference to the old
rep. If they both allocate a new clone and sto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61081
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61081&action=edit
try this untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Bug ID: 119733
Summary: store-merging increases alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 61081 [details]
> > try this untested patch
>
> I had a typo:
> "(register_operand (oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116178
Janez Zemva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janezz55 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Without h field, GCC does produce the correct alignment at least on the RTL
level:
```
(insn 7 6 0 (set (reg:DI 98 [ _26 ])
(mem:DI (reg/v/f:DI 100 [ qD.2840 ]) [0 MEM [(voidD.54
*)q_2(D)]+0 S8 A16]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118443
Bug 118443 depends on bug 119733, which changed state.
Bug 119733 Summary: store-merging increases alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119734
Bug ID: 119734
Summary: nvptx/C++ vs. '_ZTISt8bad_cast' ('typeinfo for
std::bad_cast')
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
This is the change I made to report warnings when was
maybe_complain_about_tail_call called:
heine:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline/gcc> git diff
diff --git a/gcc/calls.cc b/gcc/calls.cc
index b3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119735
Bug ID: 119735
Summary: make gcc.pot generates warnings in the m2 code base
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119735
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119735
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 61082
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61082&action=edit
Proposed fix
Proposed fix removing ' and %n from m2 comments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119736
Bug ID: 119736
Summary: rejected/ICEs when non type template parameter used as
an argument to a const ref non type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119736
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118182
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119735
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119597
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Jeevitha is looking into this, but the last thing I saw, it looked like an
issue on powerpc where the callee mistakenly thinks the caller has allocated a
param save area (which is located in the caller's sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119735
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:985ae5ae9d76f5ea10996ec7466c4d636840495a
commit r15-9388-g985ae5ae9d76f5ea10996ec7466c4d636840495a
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> Intel:
>
> This is a test.
Forgot to say: this goes to stdout, not to file.
There is no fort.-1 or the like.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
Bug ID: 119737
Summary: GCN/C++ vs. 'as': 'LLVM ERROR: Size expression must be
absolute.'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> I am curious what other compilers do with this.
>
> program foo
> integer :: iun = -1
> open (iun)
> write(iun,*) "This is a test."
> close (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119736
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>→ ICE is a '15 Regression' - as mentioned in comment 0
No, well it is a GCC 14/15 regression but only with checking enabled ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119738
Bug ID: 119738
Summary: __builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_constant_p(...), ...,
...) is sometimes incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The except.cc code does:
```
switch_to_exception_section (fnname);
/* If the target wants a label to begin the table, emit it here. */
targetm.asm_out.emit_except_table_label (asm_out_file);
/* D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119546
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119739
Bug ID: 119739
Summary: [C++25] Implement P0952R2, A new specification for
std::generate_canonical
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119740
Bug ID: 119740
Summary: [C++26] Implement P2714R1, Bind front and back to NTTP
callables
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119727
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
Yes but on the OS where you know it it's better to do both to make the runs
more reproducible. There are also bugs that don't reproduce on ASLR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-11
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119741
Bug ID: 119741
Summary: [C++26] Implement P2495R3, Interfacing stringstreams
with string_view
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119742
Bug ID: 119742
Summary: [C++26] Implement P2697R1, Interfacing bitset with
string_view
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119743
Bug ID: 119743
Summary: [C++26] Implement P0447R28, std::hive
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119725
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
I do not (yet) have access to solaris machine. Would it be possible for you to
verify that all tests passes with following adjustments:
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/std/format/debug.cc
b/libstdc++-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119744
Bug ID: 119744
Summary: [C++23] Implement P2711R1, Making multi-param
constructors of views explicit
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119745
Bug ID: 119745
Summary: [C++23] Implement P2438R2, basic_string::substr() &&
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||regis.duchesne at broadcom dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118182
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
bisection with this PR's patch led me to the patch that added the late-combine
pass as the one that enables the intended result. That's all I know so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119746
Bug ID: 119746
Summary: -Wstrict-aliasing warning on calling pointer to member
function
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61078|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119702
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82265
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just a quick update. It looks like undefined code in the verifier producing a
verification error.
scalar32_min_max_arsh does:
u64 umin_val = src_reg->u32_min_value;
/* Upon reaching here,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> Just a quick update. It looks like undefined code in the verifier producing
> a verification error.
Sorry this is incorrect. basically the problem is we have:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119732
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
After rebuilding GCC with checking enabled I get the following trace:
constexpr.core2.ii: In instantiation of ‘array convert_mask() [with _Tp =
array]’:
constexpr.core2.ii:10:22: required from here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747
Bug ID: 119747
Summary: Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas
appear in a function call
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Clang's diagnostic is equivalent to gcc's for this example:
:9:5: error: expected expression
9 | CALL_F(1, 2);
| ^
:6:40: note: expanded from macro 'CALL_F'
6 | #define CALL_F(v, ...) f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119748
Bug ID: 119748
Summary: std::string::string(InputIterator, InputIterator)
rejects volatile charT* as iterator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119748
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-11
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119746
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bungeman at chromium dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603
Bug 101603 depends on bug 119746, which changed state.
Bug 119746 Summary: -Wstrict-aliasing warning on calling pointer to member
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119746
What|Removed |Adde
101 - 200 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
