https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> Reduced example:
More reduced by eliminating library dependencies:
//--
struct atomic_bool
{
atomic_bool(const atomic_bool&) = delete;
cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, my comment was about this stylistic issue, not about the real bug (if
any, haven't tried it). Note your testcase isn't self-contained, you probably
need #include .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
--- Comment #2 from ja.gcc.bugzilla at aptsketch dot com ---
auto foo() -> void
vs
void foo()
is more of just a stylistic issue. There is nothing wrong with both. To me both
are good.
The bug is about std::atomic member initialization. Where if t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
