https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7cef070bf43bfb3f3d77bac42eadea06c4b0281
commit r11-7943-gd7cef070bf43bfb3f3d77bac42eadea06c4b0281
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99737
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
Today's sequence is:
/usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header tuple
/usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header set
/usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20
ropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210331 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99856
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-01
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
Severity|enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.3.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 78370, which changed state.
Bug 78370 Summary: taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78370
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scott.d.phillips at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78370
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 6.3.0, 7.0.1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
But... the reduced test case started triggering -Wmaybe-uninitialized in
r11-3685 while the original test case always has, so maybe I went too far with
the reduction and there are actually two bugs going on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch fixes some of the occurrences of the bug (due to (b)), but not
those due to (a), so keeping this bug open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4bb1bd60a9fd1bed36092a990aa5fed5d45bfa6
commit r11-7941-ge4bb1bd60a9fd1bed36092a990aa5fed5d45bfa6
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
It was pointed out that it _also_ works if I change
> static_assert(foo());
to
> constexpr bool b = foo();
> static_assert(b);
static_assert(foo());
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860
Bug ID: 99860
Summary: RFE: analyzer does not respect "restrict"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Bug ID: 99859
Summary: constexpr evaluation with member function is incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72826
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And just to be clear, this should apply to operator new and operator new[]. The
examples above both use the array form, but there's no reason this shouldn't
apply to the single object form too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Confirmed, thanks! Just to make sure I understand: we want a warning for
> the operator new declaration (irrespective of its definition) because the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567553.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83336
Bug 83336 depends on bug 71701, which changed state.
Bug 71701 Summary: bogus token in -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 71701, which changed state.
Bug 71701 Summary: bogus token in -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.3.0
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99858
Bug ID: 99858
Summary: Wrong throw-expression behaviour with reference to
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-March/055897.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99847
--- Comment #4 from ⎓ ---
Hmm... I was hoping to get away with the readily available compiler, and I
thought that it's actually used for CPU32. Ok, I'll try then with a specific
one tomorrow.
But still, ABI can't request that all bytes in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 71699, which changed state.
Bug 71699 Summary: bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning: gcc misses that
non-NULL pointer + offset can never be NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
> The simple patch in comment #2 also works.
I know. But it only covers the issue in gfc_simplify_transpose.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:51:57PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
>
> --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> OK, now I see it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
Bug ID: 99857
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.c/declare-variant-1.c
(test for excess errors) by r11-7926
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71011
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 71011, which changed state.
Bug 71011 Summary: Wrong decl in a "may be uninitialized" warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71011
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, now I see it. gfc_get_shape does not init the resulting shape.
The following simpler patch does the job:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42c22a4d724b4a4b0183f4412c3d42c9cca29d30
commit r10-9646-g42c22a4d724b4a4b0183f4412c3d42c9cca29d30
Author: Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7fd3b783238d034018443e43a58ff87908b4db6
commit r11-7940-ge7fd3b783238d034018443e43a58ff87908b4db6
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98119
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] SVE: |[10 Regression] SVE: Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For reasons I do not understand,
Breakpoint 1, gfc_simplify_matmul (matrix_a=0x292bbf0, matrix_b=0x292c550)
at ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/simplify.c:4777
4777 result_columns =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 98726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] aarch64, |[10 Regression] aarch64,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99726
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98268
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE: |[10 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63943
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I am about to test this patch. I think this should be P1 and I would really
like to get this fix to GCC 10.3. Sorry for getting to this so late.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 50492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50492=edit
C testcase
C testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99856
Bug ID: 99856
Summary: Alpha Compositing auto vectorization regression: 8.3
-> 9.1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-08-12 00:00:00 |2021-3-31
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are you sure it is incorrectly rejected?
http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim.lambda.general
says:
lambda-declarator:
lambda-specifiers
( parameter-declaration-clause ) lambda-specifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pat Haugen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea9a39e63eba1ba72aa3608317d1c40ae6bcef55
commit r11-7939-gea9a39e63eba1ba72aa3608317d1c40ae6bcef55
Author: Pat Haugen
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b33c5aaab9e863da162942ab8bcd54070b705af
commit r11-7938-g4b33c5aaab9e863da162942ab8bcd54070b705af
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
I have seen all that stuff with compiler at
commit d7145b4bb6c8729a1e782373cb6256c06ed60465
Let's see what will be tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67194
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.0
Summary|Missed jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
And next time same sequence run without error!
All that with the same compiler, in empty dir.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-27 00:00:00 |2021-3-31
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
malloc(): smallbin double linked list corrupted
In file included from /usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/filesystem:45:
/usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/bits/fs_path.h:94:62: internal compiler error:
Aborted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
Yes, attempting to repeat gives different message, but not same as by you:
malloc(): smallbin double linked list corrupted
In file included from /usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/bits/fs_path.h:46,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> > As discussed, I can prepare patch to make inliner to redirect
>
.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210331 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854
jseward at acm dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98268
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c778968339afd140380a46edbade054667c7dce2
commit r11-7936-gc778968339afd140380a46edbade054667c7dce2
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99726
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5c7accfb56a7347008f629be4c7344dd849b1b1
commit r11-7935-gb5c7accfb56a7347008f629be4c7344dd849b1b1
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
commit r11-7934-g1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
commit r11-7934-g1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> As discussed, I can prepare patch to make inliner to redirect
> __builtin_constant_p to __builtin_true whenever inliner detect that the
> expression is compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jseward at acm dot org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99847
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
I am almost certain that you need to use an m68k-elf toolchain rather than an
m68k-linux-gnu one for the CPU32. The linux toolchain targets the classic '020
CPU or above (030, 040, or 060) and mandates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
As discussed, I can prepare patch to make inliner to redirect
__builtin_constant_p to __builtin_true whenever inliner detect that the
expression is compile time ocnstant. This will avoid us eventually hitting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23ce9945d5efa77c96161443f68e03664705ada3
commit r11-7933-g23ce9945d5efa77c96161443f68e03664705ada3
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854
Bug ID: 99854
Summary: gcc 11 snapshot 20210328: "lto1: fatal error: Cgraph
edge statement index out of range" when building
Valgrind with LTO and -fanalyzer
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63943
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> As for using %K, I mostly agree. I actually have %G in my tree, but my goal
> is to get rid of both and replace them with a new warning function like so:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853
Bug ID: 99853
Summary: ICE: Cannot convert 'LOGICAL(4)' to 'INTEGER(8)'
(etc.)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99852
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
In addition a side mark, the following gives for all a-d :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
implicit none
integer, parameter :: wik = 1
integer(wik), parameter :: a = -huge(1_wik) - 1_wik
integer(wik) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99852
Bug ID: 99852
Summary: Missing error "Arithmetic overflow" for some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97455
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
It looks like GCC 10.1 accepts this testcase, and 10.2, 10.3 and 11 reject.
The requires-expression is a red herring, we can trigger the ICE without it:
#include
template void f() {
[] (auto x) {
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99845
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
Bug ID: 99851
Summary: Warn about operator new that takes std::nothrow_t but
is potentially-throwing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
--- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've committed the patch to gcc-10 branch.
I also committed patch modifying the test -- see PR99233.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99233
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:395dac0ab6dad8aaef1180e961a5cd51da649f23
commit r10-9645-g395dac0ab6dad8aaef1180e961a5cd51da649f23
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b7c97f25b271f826958873bda4fafc4cfc5b60d
commit r10-9644-g1b7c97f25b271f826958873bda4fafc4cfc5b60d
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65182
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31199d95de1304e200554bbf98b2d8a6a7298bec
commit r11-7932-g31199d95de1304e200554bbf98b2d8a6a7298bec
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
Bug ID: 99850
Summary: [P1102R2] reject valid lambda syntax in C++23
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
