https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #121 from Peter Bisroev ---
> > I think it would be good to test 4.7.4 build with make check.
> I will try to get that done. Unfortunately I remember trying to get guile
> (required for "make check" based on the errors) to work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93400
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93400
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c1179c339e050e2ce7c545f648b684d38dec69d
commit r10-6220-g9c1179c339e050e2ce7c545f648b684d38dec69d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
-linux-gnu/10.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-git/configure --prefix=/home/abenson/Galacticus/Tools
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90036
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92665
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note some of the moves were removed with
g:8c8952918b75f4fa6adbbe44cd641d5fd0bb55e3
But it is not a general solution, it just "splits" the case where dst and
source have the same register. my patch (which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #120 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to EML from comment #117)
> I do appreciate someone else taking a look at this; I've had a lot of
> changes at work, so this really took a back seat. And I don't have access to
> the HP compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #119 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #116)
> It's the stage1 compile flags, "-O0 -g", which generate the large binaries.
> Later stages
> are compiled with -O2. You could reduce the size of stage1 using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b91e848130e45b427599ad30e99f96e447ea9aa
commit r10-6219-g8b91e848130e45b427599ad30e99f96e447ea9aa
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93426
Bug ID: 93426
Summary: fix typo in span
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Devin Hussey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||2020-01-24 0:00
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93276
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93410
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2)
> But that's not the sort of change we make on past release branches.
OK, but note that the GCC manual does not mention any limitation of this kind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93345
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98181563dc4c65c9d23eaa99134e18876b6ec671
commit r10-6217-g98181563dc4c65c9d23eaa99134e18876b6ec671
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Fri Jan 24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93377
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93058
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93377
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55dd44535d2e4e5703c0103c26e7c51ab8c502c4
commit r10-6216-g55dd44535d2e4e5703c0103c26e7c51ab8c502c4
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38308
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers ---
*** Bug 93406 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93276
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 47705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47705=edit
Patch that fixes the build with gcc 4.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93406
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93395
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d782a8d909c5cc472c911c0ab4de0b890aad868
commit r10-6215-g5d782a8d909c5cc472c911c0ab4de0b890aad868
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93376
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14e5881e37771f1f58123e77c558adb3b90c8764
commit r10-6214-g14e5881e37771f1f58123e77c558adb3b90c8764
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93410
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I doubt GCC 9 is going to change.
Indeed. The old approach was inconsistent with normal practice, as I said
in commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> In file included from
> /data/tamchr01/write-access/gcc-git/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:403:0:
> ./md-unwind-support.h: In function 'x86_64_fallback_frame_state':
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ccc19bd4d12379a0d9fce486ceba3207749424a
commit r10-6213-g6ccc19bd4d12379a0d9fce486ceba3207749424a
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93422
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
Using a "result()" for the return value of the function allows this to compile
successfully:
module t
type :: a
contains
procedure :: p => ap
end type a
type, extends(a) :: b
contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #3 from Devin Hussey ---
I think I found the culprit commit.
Haven't set up a GCC build tree yet, though.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/a51c4926712307787d133ba50af8c61393a9229b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d54a86cd92860e1108f43fae9329ccb0897f3e1d
commit r10-6212-gd54a86cd92860e1108f43fae9329ccb0897f3e1d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #14)
> > Compiler version: 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) [src revision
> > 96f7f286
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
This passes dg.exp but I haven't convinced it's the right solution so haven't
posted it...
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -21849,8 +21849,12 @@ type_unification_real (tree tparms,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #14)
> Compiler version: 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) [src revision
> 96f7f2867f2:1b708f12f4b:5026cbde65e724347cc2d2797026bb7bb12578f1] (GCC)
>
> You c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We shouldn't have threaded this to begin with. I think I see what went wrong
here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93400
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #5 from kloetzl ---
Sorry for missing out the details, here goes:
I work in a Debian Hurd 20290705 image using qemu. The example file is given
above. Compiling with `gcc -Wall -Wextra ifunc.c` produces the following error.
error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93425
--- Comment #1 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Also, the compilation succeeds if I explicitly specify the NumberT template
parameter at the call site.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93377
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93425
Bug ID: 93425
Summary: Template parameter deduction failure when template
parameters have template template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4b7cf5865823df4b4df1d840d692dfc83fd0672
commit r9-8175-ga4b7cf5865823df4b4df1d840d692dfc83fd0672
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Ok, the ICE on Linux is a different one. This particular ICE happens only on
FreeBSD. I have rebuilt GCC9 from source with fullbootstrap and without any
-march settings. The problem remains.
What can I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7175893ad8010df1270af884a1810476e51a8cd9
commit r8-9953-g7175893ad8010df1270af884a1810476e51a8cd9
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
I can confirm this is still going wrong in a raspberry pi
cross compiler dated 20200123.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn ---
Compiler version: 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) [src revision
96f7f2867f2:1b708f12f4b:5026cbde65e724347cc2d2797026bb7bb12578f1] (GCC)
You can see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2020-01/msg01180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #12)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
> > I continue to see setjmp failures on AIX.
> >
> [...]
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-8.c (internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
> I continue to see setjmp failures on AIX.
>
[...]
> FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-8.c (internal compiler error)
> during IPA pass: analyzer
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
I continue to see setjmp failures on AIX.
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-7a.c expected multiline pattern lines 41-110 not
found:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-7a.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93424
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
Correction: The above code is valid (not invalid as I stated in the
description) as far as I can tell.
ed LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test3.mod.F90 -o test3.mod.o
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xe1b2bf crash_signal
../../gcc-git/gcc/toplev.c:328
0x7fc2247331ef ???
/data001/abenson/Galacticus
six
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test2.mod.F90 -o test2.mod.o
test2.mod.F90:21:19:
21 | module procedure bp(s)
| 1
Error: MODULE PROCEDURE at (1) must be in a generic module interface
te
igured with: ../gcc-git/configure --prefix=/home/abenson/Galacticus/Tools
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test4.mod.F90 -o test4.mod.o
test4.mod.F90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28a5d5c365044710ba32510b9bec67dd40562154
commit r10-6210-g28a5d5c365044710ba32510b9bec67dd40562154
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93421
Bug ID: 93421
Summary: futex.cc use of futex syscall is not time64-compatible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Since r9-6405-gbddee796d0b4800b5ac3d7e7e9e315c23799424d, when we see in a
lambda a use of an operator that might be overloaded, we do name lookup and
save it away in an internal attribute on the lambda call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93349
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01673.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93420
Bug ID: 93420
Summary: Deducing "T C::* const&" from a non-const
pointer-to-member-function fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #3 from kloetzl ---
Hm, I feared that this would be the answer I would get. This makes GCCs
__has_attribute much less useful than Clangs version where the docs state:
“This function-like macro takes a single identifier argument that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13721
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the docs are clear here too:
The special operator __has_attribute (operand) may be used in ‘#if’ and ‘#elif’
expressions to test whether the attribute referenced by its operand is
recognized by GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13721
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64c9f2d9972ad359a32f0a97ee0a806c2532db15
commit r10-6207-g64c9f2d9972ad359a32f0a97ee0a806c2532db15
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Fri Jan 24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
__has_attribute(ifunc) is true as the attribute is supported all the way
through the compiler up to the point where it gets emitted.
Really __has_attribute is a bad execuse for not doing proper feature
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The bug is most likely inside ix86_fold_builtin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
Bug ID: 93419
Summary: __has_attribute(ifunc) false positive on hurd and
kfreebsd
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:36:45PM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> gfc_simplify_expr calls simplify_parameter_variable which for zero size
> arrays it creates a new gfc_expr structure with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Bug ID: 93418
Summary: GCC incorrectly constant propagates _mm_sllv/srlv/srav
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #14 from Matt Emmerton ---
I'd like to thank everyone for the great discussion so far.
Here's a summary of where we are at this point.
1) sync intrinsics
Useful, but with caveats.
2) cache prefetch intrinsics
Implemented via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93417
Bug ID: 93417
Summary: PPC: Support the "Flag Output Operands" so inline-asm
can avoid having to copy CRx to GPR
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at ubuntu dot com
Target Milestone: ---
seen with 20200124 on s390x-linux-gnu. It tells it cannot be reproduced, but I
see it repeatedly.
gcc configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91113
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93414
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
this is needed for the bootstrap, you have to build the plugin for all
multilibs, although it's discarded on install.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93415
Bug ID: 93415
Summary: Previous declaration of template without default
arguments leads to incorrect overload resolution
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #9)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
[...]
> I haven't seen failures before.
^ "these failures", I meant to say
[...]
> >
> > Do you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93414
Bug ID: 93414
Summary: Bad diagnostics for dynamic_cast during constant
evaluation: implementation details leak out
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
> > [...]
> > > On Solaris (both sparc and x86), all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93413
Bug ID: 93413
Summary: Destructor definition not found during constant
evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |markeggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fixed for gcc-9 as well, please let me know if you see any more build issues
> here.
Sure, thanks for the quick resolution!
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
