https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #15 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> > >
> > > Interestingly that doesn't seem to make a difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #11)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> >
> > Interestingly that doesn't seem to make a difference. What seems to matter
> > is whether the constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e6c0e69af8da436e1d1d2d23d8c38410d78ecf2
commit r12-8214-g1e6c0e69af8da436e1d1d2d23d8c38410d78ecf2
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > > Patrick, I suggest we go with Jakub's suggestion in comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > Patrick, I suggest we go with Jakub's suggestion in comment 4, but PTAL.
>
> LGTM, it seems to be the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Patrick, I suggest we go with Jakub's suggestion in comment 4, but PTAL.
LGTM, it seems to be the simplest workaround. I also tried replacing the NSDMI
but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patrick, I suggest we go with Jakub's suggestion in comment 4, but PTAL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Consistent with Jakub's comment#2, also appearing for cris-elf (between
r12-8173-ge580f81d22d611 and r12-8175-ga54137c88061c7), and apparently all
other targets judging from today's gcc-testresults
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Based on the ICE details (on __data member of anonymous struct inside of
__from_chars_alnum_to_val_table) I think this started with:
r12-8175-ga54137c88061c7495728fc6b8dfd0474e812b2cb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2022-04-16 00:00:00 |2022-04-20
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|
16 matches
Mail list logo
