https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #13 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
Thanks a lots.
I have a question though: foo and bar are similar, foo produces a branchless
code whereas bar uses a jump.
int foo(int i) {
return !i ? 0 : -2;
}
int bar(int i) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102629
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65735d21ac410463126114c572999682f987972c
commit r12-8258-g65735d21ac410463126114c572999682f987972c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c83b9c54d9dee2dce5d8268472a745b013d166cc
commit r12-8257-gc83b9c54d9dee2dce5d8268472a745b013d166cc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
commit r12-8256-g288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86193
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
commit r12-8256-g288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105386
Bug ID: 105386
Summary: Tuple in unevaluated context is instantiated; creates
reference to void
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
--- Comment #8 from Christoph Müllner ---
Yes, I was wrong in my previous comment.
Jakub's patch is of course right.
The transformation in noce_try_store_flag_mask() does:
x = cond ? 0 else b // b may be x
==>
target = cond ? 0 : -1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE: in |[11 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ad3ca0077ec0d5f740cef5fdb743ffb61575941
commit r12-8254-g6ad3ca0077ec0d5f740cef5fdb743ffb61575941
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ad3ca0077ec0d5f740cef5fdb743ffb61575941
commit r12-8254-g6ad3ca0077ec0d5f740cef5fdb743ffb61575941
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5dc2641add6b4f54086d40ae706fda3cdaac7f5
commit r12-8253-ga5dc2641add6b4f54086d40ae706fda3cdaac7f5
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
--- Comment #7 from ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The transformation for
"""
long func2 (long a, long b, long c)
{
if (c)
a = 0;
else
a = 5;
return a;
}
"""
into
"""
0006 :
6: 00163513
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100252
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
This is tricky, because we end up with
{.x=(&)->x, .y=(&)->x}
that is, two PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs for different types on the same level in one {
}, so our CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY mechanism to avoid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Müllner ---
The proposed fix is triggering an invalid transformation.
The pattern we need to transform is:
Convert "if (test) x = 0;" to "x &= -(test == 0);"
If there is an else branch, we can't apply the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
--- Comment #5 from ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The fix addresses the issue and generates no new failures on small test cases.
Testing against SPEC is still ongoing and I'll report back once that has
completed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
Mattias Ellert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattias.ellert at physics dot
uu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 52865 [details]
> gcc12-pr105358.patch
>
> So what about this? All the newly added comparisons should fold into true
> or false at compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52871|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105362
--- Comment #2 from Pavel M ---
I do believe that evaluation of constant expressions in conditional inclusion
is done according to the rules of constant expressions ("except that ...", see
C11, 6.10.1/1). Hence, I expect the same diagnostics in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Draft patch.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
index e4b6270ccf8..e0070aa080d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
@@ -3698,7 +3698,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 52876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52876=edit
Draft patch
This shows no testsuite regression.
But there is something that I want to check before submitting it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104717
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2202431910e30d8505c94d1cb9341cac7080d10
commit r12-8252-gb2202431910e30d8505c94d1cb9341cac7080d10
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103993
andre at kostur dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre at kostur dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105385
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105383
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Summary|[PDT] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you try the one that is downloaded via contrib/download_pre*.
The you for the comment. The versions I am using are:
[ebuild R] dev-libs/gmp-6.2.1-r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you try the one that is downloaded via contrib/download_pre*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105385
Bug ID: 105385
Summary: ICE: Aborted (in do_mpfr_arg2): GNU MP: Cannot
allocate memory (size=3458764513820540832) with
__builtin_jn{,f,l}
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What version of gmp, mpfr are you using?
0220425114659-gf0e170f72f8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
I'm guessing that a reproducer is going to be hard to arrange (from the
"complex piece of code") even though the failing point is well-defined?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105287
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Thanks. FWIW I've filed PR 105382 to track the various other issues I'm
> seeing with -fanalyzer with coroutines (though given that we don't properly
> support
bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-8242-20220425114659-gf0e170f72f8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105287
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks. FWIW I've filed PR 105382 to track the various other issues I'm seeing
with -fanalyzer with coroutines (though given that we don't properly support
C++ yet, that's relatively low priority for me).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105382
Bug ID: 105382
Summary: Support for coroutines in -fanalyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
Bug ID: 105381
Summary: [12 Regression] Memory-hog since r12-8230
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336
Mattias Ellert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattias.ellert at physics dot
uu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52870|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, it needs check_no_compiler_messages_nocache in these tests. Patch
attached.
Could you please test with it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
Before inlining, the general code see:
if (_27 <= __s_53(D))
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
_34 = _27 - __s_53(D);
__nleft_64 = (const size_type) _34
THe branch now registers the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I said that above, -mdejagnu-cpu=power10 isn't passed to the effective target
snippet compilation, so it doesn't test whether the test with
-mdejagnu-cpu=power10 will be power10, but rather tests whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is still failing with latest trunk:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The feature test output you show was run without the dg-options... Something
is seriously wrong if that is the one that was used!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, lol. Yes. But please don't change this yet, it should work thew way it
is now, this should be fixed. Do you see what makes the _ARCH_PWR10 test
fail on your system?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As it uses -mdejagnu-cpu=power10, it only tests power10 code generation,
nothing else.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The test generates the expected code for all other cpus.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Somehow that doesn't really work, in the log I see that has_arch_pwr10 is
tested but yields it is not on:
/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/ arch_pwr101791933.c
-m32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
And that is what the {xfail {has_arch_pwr10 && {! has_arch_ppc64}}}
is for. Does that not work for you? Why doesn't it, it works fine here?
It would be nice if this unimportant edge case was costed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Btw. started with r12-7338-g884f77b489 if that helps.
Oh, it was already discovered by Jakub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Ever confirmed|0
1,1
@@ -39,6 +40,6 @@ bswap_int_dbl:
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.size bswap_int_dbl,.-bswap_int_dbl
- .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220310 (experimental)"
+ .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental)"
.gnu_attribute 4, 1
.section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
Bug ID: 105380
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.cc:6317
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
Bug ID: 105379
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_array_spec(): Array
spec clobbered
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5cee0480c10bafa8ed65d49e5cedca23d98d7b7
commit r12-8249-ga5cee0480c10bafa8ed65d49e5cedca23d98d7b7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
> Regarding the dg-* directives, I suspect you need arm_v8_1m_mve_fp_ok since
> the test involves floats.
I was wrong and your proposal of arm_v8_1m_mve_ok looks fine (since actually
there is no ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ba397e9f93d3abc93a6ecbabc3d873489a6fb7f
commit r12-8248-g1ba397e9f93d3abc93a6ecbabc3d873489a6fb7f
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Macieira ---
I understand. I'm just trying to avoid having to add code for a corner-case.
People don't usually parse empty buffers, so it's usually fine to allow it to
proceed and discover an EOF condition.
Anyway,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to raldone01 from comment #5)
> Thank you for your reply.
> What does that mean?
As it says at the link in comment 4, "The following behavior-changing defect
reports were applied retroactively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But we don['t want to use gnu++17 because we want the compiler to be built
using portable ISO C++17. An unrecognized attribute is a portable ISO C++17
construct, it just doesn't do anything (except maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Other MVE tests are in gcc.target/arm/simd/ (eg mve-vcmp-f32.c), maybe it's
best to keep them in the same place?
Regarding the dg-* directives, I suspect you need arm_v8_1m_mve_fp_ok since the
test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105276
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105378
Bug ID: 105378
Summary: [OpenMP][5.1] 'nowait' on 'taskwait' not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105276
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:362e2a9c6297203bcf7f66bfb51dffb82b42d3b3
commit r12-8246-g362e2a9c6297203bcf7f66bfb51dffb82b42d3b3
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, I'd prefer to keep it the way it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #5 from raldone01 ---
Thank you for your reply.
What does that mean?
Are defect reports updates for older standards?
Is it meant to be available at some point in c++17?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, no idea where exactly to put the testcase to and what dg-* directives to
use, arm testcases is something I'm really not familiar with.
Perhaps gcc.target/arm/mve/general
and
/* { dg-do compile } */
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Bug ID: 105377
Summary: Likely a misleading clang warning
-Wc++20-attribute-extensions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105376
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah it's noted as a DR at
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/packaged_task#Defect_reports
e170f72f8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
