https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, with compilers from the last decade or so, it would be much better idea to
just use standard memcpy for get_unaligned/put_unaligned rather than messing
around with pointers to packed types. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> > >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94787
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=90693
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Piotr Siupa from comment #11)
> However, I've noticed that:
> bool foo(unsigned x)
> {
> if (x == 0)
> return true;
> else
> return std::has_single_bit(x);
> }
Oh that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114224
Bug ID: 114224
Summary: popcount RTL cost seems wrong with cssc
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Hello sir/mam
I am mokshagna reddy from Mahindra university and i am currently in my second
year of under graduation in Btech artificial intelligence i had intrest in your
organization and i know programming languages like c, c++,python how can i
contribute from now and can u send details
ChangeLog:
* MAINTAINERS: Add myself
Signed-off-by: demin.han
---
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index b01fab16061..a681518d704 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -448,6 +448,7 @@ Wei Guozhi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #8 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> GCC actually doesn't diagnose on mere pointer assignment, but what triggers
> the alignment check is
> >offset
> even when the code later on just takes its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110369
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
On 3/1/24 17:29, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 3/1/24 08:23, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Aside: Shouldn't all the HTML documents start with a and
before
the table of content? Currently, it has:
Top (GNU libgomp)
and the body starts with
Short Table of Contents
I think this is a bug in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110725
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110841
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110942
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Bug 84402 depends on bug 113575, which changed state.
Bug 113575 Summary: [14 Regression] memory hog building insn-opinit.o
(i686-linux-gnu -> riscv64-linux-gnu)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112301
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112871
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113461
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113001
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113179
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113346
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113384
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113461
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #14 from
On 3/3/24 19:56, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your comments.
在 2024/3/4 6:02, Jeff Law 写道:
Why specifically are you worried here? Propagation of a volatile shouldn't in
and of itself cause a problem. We're not changing the number of volatile
accesses or anything like that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
The constraint of op[1] is inconsistent with the output template.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/loongarch.md
(define_insn "*sge_"): Fix inconsistency
error.
---
gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your comments.
在 2024/3/4 6:02, Jeff Law 写道:
> Why specifically are you worried here? Propagation of a volatile shouldn't
> in and of itself cause a problem. We're not changing the number of volatile
> accesses or anything like that -- we're just moving them around a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114223
Frank Ch. Eigler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100523
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110317
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110391
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111224
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #7)
> Created attachment 57586 [details]
> Untested patch to implement POLY_INT_CST in modules
>
> Here's a potential fix for this issue. But I only have access to
Could you rebase to the trunk ? I don't think segment load store cost depends
on previous patch you sent.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2024-03-01 23:07
To: 钟居哲; gcc-patches; palmer; kito.cheng
CC: rdapp.gcc; Jeff Law
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add initial cost handling for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Dubiec from comment #3)
> Wait a minute, shouldn't the conditions be opposite? I.e.:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__(?:gnu_)?divdc3" "optimized" { target {
> large_double } } } } */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
--- Comment #3 from Jan Dubiec ---
Wait a minute, shouldn't the conditions be opposite? I.e.:
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__(?:gnu_)?divdc3" "optimized" { target {
large_double } } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__(?:gnu_)?divsc3"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Jakub's patch on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114187
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d35b5b0e0a0727cfdaba5f859e44116c33648639
commit r14-9287-gd35b5b0e0a0727cfdaba5f859e44116c33648639
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Hi Christophe,
Hi Mark, Christophe, et. al,
>
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:32:15PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > > > And it was indeed done this way because that way the files are
>> > > > regenerated in a reproducible way. Which wasn't the case when using
>> > >
On 2/9/24 03:26, Richard Biener wrote:
The following allows a base term to be derived from an existing
MEM_EXPR, notably the points-to set of a MEM_REF base. For the
testcase in the PR this helps RTL DSE elide stores to a stack
temporary. This covers pointers to NONLOCAL which can be mapped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112868
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jeevitha from comment #8)
> Created attachment 57584 [details]
> Removed -many from the options passed by default to the assembler.
>
> Sam James, can you do a practice distro build using this
Came across this issue while working on another PR.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Or otherwise for GCC 15?
-- >8 --
Currently a using-declaration bringing a name into its own namespace is
a no-op, except for functions. This prevents people from being able to
Excerpts from Andrew Pinski's message of März 3, 2024 11:49 pm:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 5:51 PM Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch fixes a wrong code issue in the D front-end where lowered
>> struct comparisons would reinterpret fields with a different (usually
>> bigger) alignment
On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 5:51 PM Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch fixes a wrong code issue in the D front-end where lowered
> struct comparisons would reinterpret fields with a different (usually
> bigger) alignment than the original. Use `build_aligned_type' to
> preserve the alignment
On 2/29/24 06:28, Robin Dapp wrote:
On 2/29/24 02:38, Li, Pan2 wrote:
So it's going to check if V2SF can be tied to DI and V4QI with SI. I
suspect those are going to fail for RISC-V as those aren't tieable.
Yes, you are right. Different REG_CLASS are not allowed to be tieable in RISC-V.
Hi,
This patch merges the D front-end and runtime library with upstream dmd
f8bae04558, and the standard library with phobos ba2ade9dec
D front-end changes:
- Import dmd v2.108.1-beta-1.
D runtime changes:
- Import druntime v2.108.1-beta-1.
Phobos changes:
- Import phobos
Snapshot gcc-14-20240303 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/14-20240303/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 14 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On 2/25/24 20:30, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
Hi,
This patch tries to fix a potential problem which is raised by the patch
for PR111267. The volatile asm operand tries to be propagated to a single
set insn with the patch for PR111267. It has potential risk as the behavior
is wrong. Currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101893
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
On 2/29/24 00:06, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
The vect_int_mod target selector is evaluated with the options in
DEFAULT_VECTCFLAGS in effect, but these options are not automatically
passed to tests out of the vect directories. So this test fails on
targets where integer vector modulo operation is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105522
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
fixed on trunk, intending to backport it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113010
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113010
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24975a9195743e8eb4ca213f35b9221d4eeb6b59
commit r14-9284-g24975a9195743e8eb4ca213f35b9221d4eeb6b59
Author: Greg McGary
Date: Sun
On 3/3/24 12:43, Uros Bizjak wrote:
umuldi3_highpart expander does:
if (REG_P (operands[2]))
operands[2] = gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (TImode, operands[2]);
on register_operand predicate, which also allows SUBREG RTX. So,
subregs were emitted without ZERO_EXTEND RTX.
But nowadays we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101893
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Hi Christophe,
On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:32:15PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > > And it was indeed done this way because that way the files are
> > > > regenerated in a reproducible way. Which wasn't the case when using
> > > > --enable-maintainer-mode (and autoreconfig also doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105522
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114223
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
Hi Paul,
welcome back!
On 3/3/24 17:04, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi Harald,
Please find an updated version of the patch that rolls in Steve's patch for
PR114141, fixes unlimited polymorphic function selectors and cures the
memory leaks. I apologise for not working on this sooner but, as I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114223
Bug ID: 114223
Summary: Utilize filtering for git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:57:50AM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> > Mark Wielaard 于2024年2月19日周一 06:58写道：
> > > So, I did try the regenerate-opt-urls locally, and it did generate the
> > > attached diff. Which seems to show we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113720
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at
umuldi3_highpart expander does:
if (REG_P (operands[2]))
operands[2] = gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (TImode, operands[2]);
on register_operand predicate, which also allows SUBREG RTX. So,
subregs were emitted without ZERO_EXTEND RTX.
But nowadays we have UMUL_HIGHPART that allows us to fix this
This is a no-op patch that uses some more C++ / C99
features if possible.
Johann
--
AVR: Use more C++ ish coding style.
gcc/
* config/avr/avr.cc: Resolve ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED.
Use bool in place of int for boolean logic (if possible).
Move declarations to definitions (if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113720
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:318e0d44fe66ade59edb16a94565b3bfdc1883c6
commit r14-9282-g318e0d44fe66ade59edb16a94565b3bfdc1883c6
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah.
Without a testcase we do not know what is going on. Likely it is a testcase
with some very big basic block, which naturally gives very many combination
opportunities: the problem by nature is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC actually doesn't diagnose on mere pointer assignment, but what triggers the
alignment check is
>offset
even when the code later on just takes its address, entry must be sufficiently
aligned, otherwise
Hi All,
The following patch has been bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64le-linux.
When we expand the __builtin_vsx_splat_2di function, we were allowing immediate
value for second operand which causes an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114220
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Дилян Палаузов from comment #3)
> > The warning is designed this way explictly because you are returning a
> > reference and taking a reference as an argument and in the case of b2, the
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 114219, which changed state.
Bug 114219 Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] [expr.const] lvalue-to-rvalue
conversion is not diagnosed to disqualify constant expressions for empty classes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114219
Jan Schultke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114222
Bug ID: 114222
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtin-bitops-1.c fails for
H8/300
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
--- Comment #2 from Jan Dubiec ---
Unfortunately, large_double does not work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114221
Bug ID: 114221
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c fails for H8/300
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114100
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0f5b6caff669037444506cb6008a378356ec209
commit r14-9281-gc0f5b6caff669037444506cb6008a378356ec209
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
This addendum ports a corner case optimization from -mno-fuse-add
to -mfuse-add: When a base register needs temporal adjustment,
and the base is the frame pointer, then there are cases where the
post-adjustment is not needed.
Passes without new regressions on ATtiny40.
Johann
--
AVR: ad
On 2/29/24 01:35, Richard Biener wrote:
The following amends the PR114070 fix to optimistically allow
the folding when we cannot expand the current vec_cond using
vcond_mask and we're still before vector lowering. This leaves
a small window between vectorization and lowering where we could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113680
Ken Matsui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kmatsui at gcc dot
gnu.org
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file,
Hi Harald,
Please find an updated version of the patch that rolls in Steve's patch for
PR114141, fixes unlimited polymorphic function selectors and cures the
memory leaks. I apologise for not working on this sooner but, as I informed
you, I have been away for an extended trip to Australia.
The
Excerpts from Richard Biener's message of März 3, 2024 11:41 am:
>
>
>> Am 03.03.2024 um 02:51 schrieb Iain Buclaw :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch fixes a wrong code issue in the D front-end where lowered
>> struct comparisons would reinterpret fields with a different (usually
>> bigger)
> Am 03.03.2024 um 13:56 schrieb Roger Sayle :
>
>
> This patch fixes PR target/114187 a typo/missed-optimization in simplify-rtx
> that's exposed by (my) changes to x86_64's parameter passing. The context
> is that construction of double word (TImode) values now uses the idiom:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114207
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85432
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
This patch fixes PR target/114187 a typo/missed-optimization in simplify-rtx
that's exposed by (my) changes to x86_64's parameter passing. The context
is that construction of double word (TImode) values now uses the idiom:
(ior:TI (ashift:TI (zero_extend:TI (reg:DI x)) (const_int 64 [0x40]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #65 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dae3456965064c9664c097c785ae9bf9fa203fa0
commit r14-9280-gdae3456965064c9664c097c785ae9bf9fa203fa0
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Removed the last cc0 remains.
Johann
--
AVR: ad target/92792 - Remove insn attribute "cc" and its (dead) uses.
The backend has remains of cc0 condition code. Unfortunately,
all that information is useless with CCmode, and their use was
removed with the removal of NOTICE_UPDATE_CC in PR92729
> Am 03.03.2024 um 02:51 schrieb Iain Buclaw :
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch fixes a wrong code issue in the D front-end where lowered
> struct comparisons would reinterpret fields with a different (usually
> bigger) alignment than the original. Use `build_aligned_type' to
> preserve the alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114220
--- Comment #3 from Дилян Палаузов ---
> The warning is designed this way explictly because you are returning a
> reference and taking a reference as an argument and in the case of b2, the
> tempory is `std::string("u")` .
> In GCC 14+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114220
--- Comment #2 from Дилян Палаузов ---
Is my reading correct, that the warning is triggered, when a function receives
as parameter a reference to a temporary and returns a reference? If this is
the only criterion, then it is a wrong
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
