https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108813
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108729
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108810
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108810
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108729
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108727
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15b83b69ca99d97643075776ba94f2dd1f05b46e
commit r13-6545-g15b83b69ca99d97643075776ba94f2dd1f05b46e
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108730
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fd3d3567396e63cf5dde96ef03fcc92c6bcec71
commit r13-6541-g9fd3d3567396e63cf5dde96ef03fcc92c6bcec71
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108729
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bab3b6a9c3bde32903815826f96abc18e62bff6e
commit r13-6542-gbab3b6a9c3bde32903815826f96abc18e62bff6e
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108810
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4bcdc362e90a07977f85d79c82fd7dcd20d80ac9
commit r13-6539-g4bcdc362e90a07977f85d79c82fd7dcd20d80ac9
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108813
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3be550e35e1c67327d3724380632512872224178
commit r13-6540-g3be550e35e1c67327d3724380632512872224178
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #4 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Right, when I replaced gcc-11 with gcc-12 in my script, I got the following
warnings. One of them was there before, the other is new.
/tmp/sqlite3-preprocessed-2.c: In function ‘posixUnlock’:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
--- Comment #4 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> I don't really understand why we should prefer the memory if there is a
> REG_EQUIV note, nor why this does not happen with -fPIE.
I didn't understand the optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #2)
> I think this is most likely caused by the implementation of the public code.
Agree, so I filled the component as rtl-optimization.
I tracked a (non root) cause to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108773
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> /tmp/1.C:18:137: error: no match for ‘operator=’ (operand types are
Curiously, changing #include to #include reproduces the ICE:
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
Bug ID: 109062
Summary: [13 regression] Default value of GOMP_SPINCOUNT
changes since r13-2545
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
chenglulu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109061
--- Comment #1 from fsb4000 at yandex dot ru ---
Actually, I'm not sure. Maybe GCC does correct things and the person wrongly
thinks that the code should work...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109061
Bug ID: 109061
Summary: GCC try to eagerly instantiate more than needed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like it has been fixed in GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108185
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81649
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5c4fdaccdf444632c9872537b6026dc6758a952
commit r13-6535-gc5c4fdaccdf444632c9872537b6026dc6758a952
Author: Jonathan Grant
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108060
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Candidate fix:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -106,6 +106,18 @@ ubsan_walk_array_refs_r (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees,
void *data)
}
else if (TREE_CODE (*tp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109053
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 100% sure there is an aliasing issue here or rather aliasing is getting in
the way of VRP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109060
Bug ID: 109060
Summary: -Wanalyzer-deref-before-check false positives seen in
haproxy's cfgparse.c: parse_process_number
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108976
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Excellent, thanks! I'll look at the commits tomorrow and get back to you.
A patch will need to be submitted to the mailing lists, but it might be OK to
send a single diff for the whole series, but then I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Also, reset() is only defined in cgraph_node, and I need it to work on both
functions and variables.
Clearing n->type seems to confuse things that expect all symbols to be either
function or variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107572
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108362
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess more debugging tomorrow. Because with the frange_nextafter it comes up
for the f1 to range
p[frange] double
[-2.22044604925031283432823045461545143383482334912930322712e-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108976
--- Comment #4 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
I have fixed this, added large testsute and discovered another bug in
codecvt_utf16 when the input [from, from_end) contains odd number of bytes.
Error was returned instead of partial.
Here are the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> I think we may get around with only turning the node back to non-declaration
> by calling n->reset()?
It seems I also need to n->remove_from_same_comdat_group().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108706
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109059
Bug ID: 109059
Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false +ve seen on haproxy's
cfgparse.c: cfg_register_postparser
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54601|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108526
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f181f9c7ee3efc509d185fdfda33be9018f1611
commit r13-6533-g4f181f9c7ee3efc509d185fdfda33be9018f1611
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106651
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f181f9c7ee3efc509d185fdfda33be9018f1611
commit r13-6533-g4f181f9c7ee3efc509d185fdfda33be9018f1611
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54599|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109058
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Even better would be for the event condition to express the string, when it's a
string literal, so that it reads:
../../src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/strcmp-path-1.c:27:5: note: path
27 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109058
Bug ID: 109058
Summary: RFE: analyzer should elide repeated calls to strcmp in
execution paths
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054
Ben Woodard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87844
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I tried to explain, because libgcc_s and libstdc++ are different libraries,
there is nothing that can be done on the GCC side.
You can avoid libunwind (which is a good idea, it is a terrible library from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103403
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Henry from comment #9)
> Just to make it clear, I'm not saying this is a bug on GCC.
>
> Im just trying to understand what is happening since this is affecting some
> of our benchmarks. Then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054
--- Comment #3 from Ben Woodard ---
Actually what we were hoping to achieve was not to substitute another version
of _Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData for the one that is in libgcc_s.so but
rather to make it so that that another implementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67048
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109055
--- Comment #1 from Chris Hodges ---
I listed the compiler for the native GCC instead of
arm-none-eabi-gcc -v
The RPI400 compiiler for the Cortex M0 is 8.3.1
RPI400:
arm-none-eabi-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=arm-none-eabi-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78208
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I think the compile-hog would also be visible with -Wduplicated-branches,
> but that's not in yet (and it's unclear whether it will make its way in to
> GCC 7).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #9 from Henry ---
Just to make it clear, I'm not saying this is a bug on GCC.
Im just trying to understand what is happening since this is affecting some of
our benchmarks. Then we can counter with some wit.
Perhaps there is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d30593c387e5feb0db8ad90d1650ee49361d536
commit r13-6531-g7d30593c387e5feb0db8ad90d1650ee49361d536
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > No it is not. you just don't notice it there because goldbolt is hiding
> > things because it thinks it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I certainly can't reproduce the LUT array not being emitted, tried GCC 11, 12
and trunk,
C and C++ (all -O2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #6 from Henry ---
Still, why is it then if you change the type to uint32_t the behavior changes?
And why the entire static array is cut out from the object file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> No it is not. you just don't notice it there because goldbolt is hiding
> things because it thinks it is unused.
This actually isn't godbolt hiding anything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #4 from Henry ---
Yes it is optimized away.
Note that even in this case the entire static array is optimized away from the
object file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
--- Comment #1 from Henry ---
Two caveats:
1. If you add something like `xor %0,%0` inside the assembly text, LUT is not
optimized
inline void DoNotOptimize( uint8_t value) {
asm volatile("xor %0,%0" : : "r,m"(value) : "memory");
}
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109057
Bug ID: 109057
Summary: Does GCC interpret assembly when deciding to optimize
away a variable?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109056
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Which turns on -Wsign-conversion .
-Wsign-conversion seems close, but not quite right. The problem is
in potential overflow, not sign conversion.
-Woverflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109056
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> -Wconversion is needed for this warning in GCC.
Which turns on -Wsign-conversion .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109056
Bug ID: 109056
Summary: cppcheck: no warning for suspicious return type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109005
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > > > So ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb82334341e21ad0254f63e942be276f62d111cf
commit r12-9233-gfb82334341e21ad0254f63e942be276f62d111cf
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
>
> --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > > So .. for promotion of target expression temporaries to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80f0052b3924569af904d1bab0858fe985f33a94
commit r13-6529-g80f0052b3924569af904d1bab0858fe985f33a94
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109055
Bug ID: 109055
Summary: Code generation error when function decorated for
execution in SRAM
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61882
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109049
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I thought it was already allowed, because std::declval is not an addressable
function ([namespace.std]) but that only covers forming pointers and references
to functions. We should extend that to cover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054
Bug ID: 109054
Summary: _Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData should have protected
visibility
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d573c1f002fa77a4483aa9ebe310746a313082e
commit r13-6527-g0d573c1f002fa77a4483aa9ebe310746a313082e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 107939, which changed state.
Bug 107939 Summary: [11 Regression] Rejects use of `extern const` variable in a
template since r11-557
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19ed6bf44c3fec882cf4c825f3ffa4f2ecdc78e6
commit r12-9232-g19ed6bf44c3fec882cf4c825f3ffa4f2ecdc78e6
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11/12 Regression] Rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109030
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4692319fd5fc7d740436e8bb338f44cb8df6c58
commit r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7d740436e8bb338f44cb8df6c58
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e09bc034d1b4d692b409fa5af52ae34480a6f4dc
commit r13-6525-ge09bc034d1b4d692b409fa5af52ae34480a6f4dc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109049
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
I've mailed to LWG Chair to request legitimation of libc++ and libstdc++'s
current strategy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > So .. for promotion of target expression temporaries to frame vars, one of:
> > - a) we need to find a different way to name them
> I think we can just count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109027
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109017
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on unexpanded pack from |ICE on unexpanded pack from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108997
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
