[Bug c++/109283] Destructor of co_yield conditional argument called twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109283 --- Comment #3 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- Appears fixed in 13.1 Still ICEs in trunk, Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-70d038235cc91ef1ea4fce519e628cfb2d297bff-binutils-2.40) 14.0.0 20230508 (experimental): : In function 'std::generator >

[Bug c++/59498] [DR 1430][10/11/12/13 Regression] Pack expansion error in template alias

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498 --- Comment #22 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- CWG 1430 seems to be about disallowing a construct that requires capturing an alias declaration into a name mangling. This bug and at least some of those referred to it do not ask for any such

[Bug c++/109283] Destructor of co_yield conditional argument called twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109283 --- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- Betting this one is fixed by deleting code.

[Bug c++/109291] type alias template rejects pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109291 --- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- CWG 1430 is still marked Open, and is anyway only superficially analogous. Here, there is no need for an alias to be encoded into a type signature.

[Bug c++/109291] New: type alias template rejects pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109291 Bug ID: 109291 Summary: type alias template rejects pack Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/109283] New: Destructor of co_yield conditional argument called twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109283 Bug ID: 109283 Summary: Destructor of co_yield conditional argument called twice Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/68703] __attribute__((vector_size(N))) template member confusion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68703 --- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- (In reply to ncm from comment #9) > This bug appears not to manifest in g++-8, 9, and 10. Of the three code samples in comment 4, the first and third fail to compile because N is undefined. What

[Bug target/87085] with -march=i386, gcc should not generate code including endbr instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085 ncm at cantrip dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ncm at cantrip dot org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #12 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- As it is, your probability of failure in 9 and 10 is exactly 1.0.

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- Don't understand, the compiler we are using (9) has the regression. It looks like a trivial backport.

[Bug libstdc++/42857] std::istream::ignore(std::streamsize n) calls unnecessary underflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42857 --- Comment #9 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > Probably changed by one of the patches for PR 94749 or PR 96161, although I > still see two reads for the first example. Thank you, I was mistaken.

[Bug c++/68703] __attribute__((vector_size(N))) template member confusion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68703 --- Comment #9 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- This bug appears not to manifest in g++-8, 9, and 10.

[Bug c++/66028] false positive, unused loop variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66028 --- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- This bug appears not to manifest in g++-10.2.

[Bug libstdc++/42857] std::istream::ignore(std::streamsize n) calls unnecessary underflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42857 --- Comment #7 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- This bug appears not to manifest in g++-10.

[Bug c++/58855] Attributes ignored on type alias in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58855 --- Comment #2 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- This bug is still present in g++-10.2

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #6 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- The referenced patch seems to have also deleted a fair bit of explanatory comment text, including a list of possible refinements for selected targets.

[Bug target/97736] New: [9/10 Regression] switch codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 Bug ID: 97736 Summary: [9/10 Regression] switch codegen Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target