https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77314
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
Bug ID: 87442
Summary: Add options to filter files we want to instrument for
code coverage
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87443
Bug ID: 87443
Summary: GCC mixes abstract and concrete instances in abstract
origins for inlines
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87444
Bug ID: 87444
Summary: 'gcc -marc=native' sets L2 cache size equal to L3
cache size on i7 and i5 CPU
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68510
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Can't reproduce with the active branches or the released 6.1.0 for that matter.
Marek, can you double check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87440
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44754
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44754=edit
not working patch
Simply merging the single subblock of an inline block runs afoul several
issues:
- dead block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
Bug ID: 87441
Summary: Found compiler internal error: in tsubst at
cp/pt.c:13657
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87347
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58774
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77314
--- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #1)
> A workaround for current GCC versions is to use an array of size 1.
That, by the way, shows an existing code generation problem:
struct S { S(); };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68437
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 68437, which changed state.
Bug 68437 Summary: [concepts] fold expression, pack expansion, and deduced
constraint requirement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68437
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87347
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 26 11:58:18 2018
New Revision: 264640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264640=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 87347] Prevent segfaults if TYPE_ARG_TYPES is NULL
2018-09-26 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67970, which changed state.
Bug 67970 Summary: [concepts] variable template bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67970
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67970
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> I believe this is correct for C99 (see the discussions in bug 82071): [...]
Bug 82071 has no discussions. The main reference is N1531, which one can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
calixte changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcastelluccio at mozilla dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87439
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> Following patch should fix the problem:
[...]
It did indeed: bootstrapped without regressions on i386-pc-solaris2.11.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59439
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31405|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87439
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Sep 26 14:55:59 2018
New Revision: 264645
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264645=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/87439
* config/i386/i386.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87444
--- Comment #2 from George ---
Forgive me, I am not a developer and I am not aware how this was designed. But
may I ask: why was it designed to be wrong and why only on particular CPUs?
Also: what happens when a wrong l2-cache-size is used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87444
--- Comment #4 from George ---
Richard Biener,
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I don't understand what it means - whether
I should set explicitly the correct l2-cache-size or if that has any effect on
the final binary.
But I realise this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87434
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
+ rtx new_mem = gen_rtx_MEM (GET_MODE (mem), derived_ptr_reg);
+ MEM_COPY_ATTRIBUTES (new_mem, mem);
I think it's dangerous to use old MEMs attributes this way, esp. MEM_EXPR
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87443
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 14:35:48 2018
New Revision: 264643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264643=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Richard Biener
PR debug/87443
* dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59439
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71278
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87444
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87434
--- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for this suggestion. I'll investigate further.
(My intent was to advise the compiler that this new memory address expression
computes the same memory location as the original memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87444
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is by design.
A comment in driver-i386.c says:
/* Let the L3 replace the L2. This assumes inclusive caches
and single threaded program for now. */
if (level3.sizekb)
level2 = level3;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59439
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Using current trunk and -O2 to compile the benchmark in comment 8 I get:
snprintf
1 threads took 11 ms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71278
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Sep 25 14:26:11 2018
New Revision: 264571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264571=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/71278
* config/i386/i386.md (frndintxf2_mask_pm): Remove.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's 6.3.1.4 for conversions between real floating and integer types that,
in C99 but not C11, I think requires the resulting value to be
representable in the resulting real floating type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87414
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 26 17:00:49 2018
New Revision: 264651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264651=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/87414
* config/i386/i386.c: Include debug.h and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59439
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #0)
> The following code shows allocatable character does not work as it should:
>
>call g(1)
> contains
> subroutine g(x)
> integer :: x
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #5)
> It's 6.3.1.4 for conversions between real floating and integer types that,
> in C99 but not C11, I think requires the resulting value to be
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> It's the "If the value being converted is in the range of values that can
> be represented but cannot be represented exactly" bit I'm concerned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
>
> --- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87445
Bug ID: 87445
Summary: missing null test optimization for a pointer member
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87445
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> > It's 6.3.1.4 for conversions between real floating and integer types that,
> > in C99 but not C11, I think requires the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #13)
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
>
> > But there are no differences with 6.3.1.4 (when converting to a floating
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
>
> --- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #16)
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> > which distinction?
>
> The one you made above, between values that can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Anyway, I recall that the behavior related to extra precision and range is
described by 6.3.1.8. Thus I really don't see why 6.3.1.4 and 6.3.1.5 would
come into play here (except in case of explicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #4 from Will Wray ---
Thanks Martin,
I investigated enum template args with GCC bug 81932 test code,
repeating its GDB Python-debug-print test case for enum args.
Conclusion:
This change to enum printing does not cause GDB to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
6.3.1.8 specifies *types*. It only gives some partial information about
*evaluation formats*, which is essentially a consequence of information
elsewhere (it states the possibility of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #15 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Note also that 6.3.1.5p2 occurs in case of explicit conversions or function
calls, not in typical floating-point expressions, in which types can be
promoted, but never demoted. So, I don't see really what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> But there are no differences with 6.3.1.4 (when converting to a floating
> type):
> in both cases, either the value can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think the statement in 6.3.1.8 is only observing a consequence of
specifications elsewhere, and stating that this excess range and precision
does not affect semantic types; it does not,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #21 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #20)
> I think the statement in 6.3.1.8 is only observing a consequence of
> specifications elsewhere,
No, 6.3.1.8 gives a specification about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
--- Comment #8 from Eugeniu Rosca ---
On 2018-09-25 at 08:53:34 UTC, Jonathan Wakely wrote in comment #6:
> He already did. Comment 1 quotes the GCC manual which references
> the relevant sections of the standards.
Comment 1 does indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Sep 26 21:14:16 2018
New Revision: 264656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264656=gcc=rev
Log:
Support excess precision for integer / floating-point comparisons (PR c/87390).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> 6.3.1.5p2 is only about explicit conversions and function calls (otherwise,
> types are not demoted magically). But in my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86957
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: qinzhao
Date: Wed Sep 26 22:29:54 2018
New Revision: 264657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264657=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Indu Bhagat
PR gcov-profile/86957
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #23 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #22)
> 6.3.1.8 specifies *types*. It only gives some partial information about
> *evaluation formats*, which is essentially a consequence of information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
--- Comment #25 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #24)
> You note that "values subject to the usual arithmetic conversions can either
> be floating-point values or integer values". Only in the floating-point
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #65 from Chris Johns ---
I am still seeing this issue with the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00933.html applied to gcc-7.3.0
(RTEMS 5 [master]) tool builds. This is on Mojave and an fully updated Xcode.
The ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87447
Bug ID: 87447
Summary: Missing -Wconversion warning in implicit conversion of
unsigned long long to double
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eugeniu Rosca from comment #8)
> On 2018-09-25 at 08:53:34 UTC, Jonathan Wakely wrote in comment #6:
>
> > He already did. Comment 1 quotes the GCC manual which references
> > the relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87446
Bug ID: 87446
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in expand_LOOP_VECTORIZED, at
internal-fn.c:2431
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
--- Comment #34 from Martin Liška ---
For the next version of the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01529.html
I seen even better results:
TOTAL warnings: 23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87448
Bug ID: 87448
Summary: ICE at trans-expr:3417 in allocate statement with type
signature using an associated variable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #31 from Tamar Christina ---
> It seems that some paths are properly translated though, for example the
> library paths. Do you know why? It would be nice to have the gnatlink
> command line that gave rise to the invocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Full build log is here
> https://mistuke.blob.core.windows.net/binaries/logs/build.log
Thanks.
> It may be the quoting around the options for --LINK that's causing the shell
> not to convert the paths.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #33 from Tamar Christina ---
> Do you know whether it would be possible to force the conversion by applying
> some trick to GCC_LINK in ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in?
Yeah usually, cygpath -w would convert a path, seems we alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67656, which changed state.
Bug 67656 Summary: [concepts] matched variadics in expression constraint report
as unmatched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67656
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67656
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67656
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 26 09:08:24 2018
New Revision: 264596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264596=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67656
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87439
Bug ID: 87439
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in ix86_mode_needed, at
config/i386/i386.c:18907
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87439
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87415
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 44753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44753=edit
untested patch
1-bit signed fields are weird in that 0 - (-MIN) is still -MIN. In any other
world, it is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67655, which changed state.
Bug 67655 Summary: [concepts] expression constraints and variadic expansions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67655
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #34 from David ---
My primary concern in 87316 was about memory usage and this patch definitely
helps a lot with that. Thanks!
Using -ftree-coalesce-vars helps on >= 4.9 versions and does not seem to have
an adverse effect on test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67655
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 26 09:23:00 2018
New Revision: 264638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264638=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67655
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67655
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87428
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 07:05:01 2018
New Revision: 264594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264594=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Richard Biener
PR debug/87428
PR debug/87362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 07:05:01 2018
New Revision: 264594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264594=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Richard Biener
PR debug/87428
PR debug/87362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87439
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
Bug 87362 depends on bug 87428, which changed state.
Bug 87428 Summary: "Missed" inline instances cause bogus DWARF to be emitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87428
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 71130, which changed state.
Bug 71130 Summary: [concepts] Ill-formed code declaring a variable with a
non-type concept not rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71130
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85065
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at honermann dot net
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71130
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71126
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85065
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
*** Bug 71126 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 71126, which changed state.
Bug 71126 Summary: [concepts] ICE on ill-formed code declaring a variable with
a non-type concept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71126
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87440
Bug ID: 87440
Summary: GCC creates debug that confuses gdb
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71127
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 26 09:59:56 2018
New Revision: 264639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264639=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71131
*
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
