https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
--- Comment #9 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
Created attachment 47654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47654=edit
pre-processed isl_fold.c
gcc_r277495
./contrib/download_prerequisites
~/src/gcc_r277485/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> @Dmitry: Can you please attach a pre-processed source file (-E option)?
done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47651=edit
proposed patch
This is patch I plan to test which fixes the last testcase. It adds warning
about TREE_ADDRESSABLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> Btw, on trunk I see it optimized, maybe some recent CTOR "fixing" fixed it
> again? Can you double-check?
>
> If it's fixed again I suggest to add the testcase (ck should be elided
> in the assembly?)
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88081
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, the problem was debug info getting bigger due to more inlining? I guss in
that case we could close it. That patch is expected to allow more inlines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
pskocik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pskocik at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your testcase is invalid:
iota.cc: In function 'int main()':
iota.cc:22:6: error: conflicting declaration 'auto beginTest4'
22 | auto beginTest4 = std::ranges::begin(Test5); // OK
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> @Dmitry: Can you please attach a pre-processed source file (-E option)?
@Martin: FAIL start for me during gcc bootstrap somewhere between r277460 and
:
error: no match for call to '(const std::ranges::__cust_access::_Begin) (const
std::ranges::iota_view&)'
/home/pililatiesa/gcc-trunk-20200114/include/c++/10.0.0/bits/range_access.h:420:2:
note: candidate: 'constexpr auto
std::ranges::__cust_access::_Begin::operator()(_Tp&&) const [with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #7)
> Apologies for delay. Kicked off SPEC2k6 builds, and will report results
> tomorrow.
PING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, other testcases does not reproduce for me. However if they do it seems like
fallout from the change dropping type checking from call statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
Bug ID: 93266
Summary: strlen pass could optimize strncpy with known strlen
(src) == 0 into memset
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think backporting would be a good idea :) If you beat me on it even better.
Now I need to set up my trees in git...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, because the source files differs, the comdat group differs and the
loosing one has fewer symbols in it. So we end up keeping some symbols from
the other comdat group that happens to have same name. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
--- Comment #2 from Kris ---
It builds with -O2, fails with -O3.
igured with: ../gcc-trunk-20200114/configure --prefix=/usr
--build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
--disable-bootstrap --with-abi=m64 --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-ld=yes --enable-libstdcxx-debug
--enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-
igured with: ../gcc-trunk-20200114/configure --prefix=/usr
--build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
--disable-bootstrap --with-abi=m64 --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-ld=yes --enable-libstdcxx-debug
--enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93265
Bug ID: 93265
Summary: memcmp comparisons of structs wrapping a primitive
type not as compact/efficient as direct comparisons of
the underlying primitive type under -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
--- Comment #1 from Kris ---
sorry. I guess I should add this version of gcc is built from the git version
pulled this morning.
gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20200114 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92749
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is intentional, we got less aggressive at inlining inline functions for
-O2 (since we do not need to do all inlining we want for -O3 when we have
independent set of attributes).
Indeed -Winline -Werror
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Martin, did you try to get some testsuite scale version of the last testcase?
Sorry, but no. So please apply the patch and we can close it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Bug ID: 93268
Summary: ICE with gcc-10 when compiling hypre library with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
--- Comment #5 from Pilar Latiesa ---
It compiles with -std=gnu++2a but not with -std=c++2a. Hope this helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:780e19f87c8a69e425b6f98703e6931f49518a80
commit r10-5942-g780e19f87c8a69e425b6f98703e6931f49518a80
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |10.0
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90917
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The solution for pr83431 doesn't handle the case in comment #2 but hopefully a
future improvement (in GCC 11) will.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93248
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93101
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93179
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Arrays-and-pointers-implementation.html#Arrays-and-pointers-implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:18:45AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> CUT
> So using an undocumented extension
The 'X' extension was documented, but I doubt anyone reads
documentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the strlen pass would handle if (__builtin_strlen (a)) return; if we
disabled the early folding, then it should be taught to handle whatever it is
folded to.
Though, I'm not sure it can, there is no code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
--- Comment #4 from Kris ---
Created attachment 47653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47653=edit
preprocessed source file
gzipped preprocessed source file attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The strlen pass sets the range for non-constant strlen results so it can handle
(and make use of) this sort of thing by querying the range of the strlen lhs.
For example, it detects the buffer overflow in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93254
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bd65ad89c202aba3929b9a03ef7e84de873380a
commit r10-5947-g6bd65ad89c202aba3929b9a03ef7e84de873380a
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
This is a consequence of the change Jonathan cites, to treat the inherited
constructor as a user-declared constructor that prevents the implicit
declaration of a default constructor in Derived.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is implementation defined area. And is documented. Neither is clang or
gcc is wrong. Now I dont know where clang it is documented but I posted where
gcc behavior is documented. So closing as invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2a2a06cafff858f3211a53a6ecc215f5b296565
commit r8-9933-ga2a2a06cafff858f3211a53a6ecc215f5b296565
Author: Joseph Myers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92009
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80de0002429c74626198cefa168c3081c9d90566
commit r10-5944-g80de0002429c74626198cefa168c3081c9d90566
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92009
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8982b5535c2762f566fd15e5862acf4702a78690
commit r10-5945-g8982b5535c2762f566fd15e5862acf4702a78690
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
Bug ID: 93269
Summary: 32bit-pointer to uint64_t cast sign-extends
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:48:30AM +, fx at gnu dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
>
> --- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
> Apologies, I was misled by something else; that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem happens when the first template argument is an integer with no
larger integer type available. I try to use __int128 but that's not usable with
-std=c++2a.
#include
int main()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ddd792fa53345180c782494aa597e438a73b6248
commit r10-5952-gddd792fa53345180c782494aa597e438a73b6248
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93223
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b849001991c41b68407e7b0bcabf88e4ef414fff
commit r9-8133-gb849001991c41b68407e7b0bcabf88e4ef414fff
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any -march= or similar? Can't reproduce with current trunk, nor
with even Oct 10 GCC snapshot (crosses in both cases).
grep -B1 stxr pr92692.s
doesn't show any stores before stxr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93270
Bug ID: 93270
Summary: [10 Regression] DSE removes store incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5a3c2dcf73aa245b0eb6f6cf56c4d03ab6056da
commit r10-5948-ga5a3c2dcf73aa245b0eb6f6cf56c4d03ab6056da
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
I have been making progress on this (I'm in contact with Jason about that) but
unfortunately the issue requires additional analysis for the simple reason that
if I remove/amend my r260482 changes then in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93223
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288c5324bf6e418dd94d718d1619464a4f68ff8e
commit r10-5951-g288c5324bf6e418dd94d718d1619464a4f68ff8e
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think the expedient thing to do here is fix DSE in isolation. Note that I
think the code in question is new, so if we have to xfail some tests, that
wouldn't IMHO represent a regression.
Integrating DSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The need to drop qualifiers in typeof in some cases with _Atomic results
from the stdatomic.h implementation, where it is necessary to define
temporaries with the corresponding non-atomic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either we should document newer binutils requirement for aarch64 (and figure
out which exactly), or e.g. if it is possible fall back to using .byte or
similar to encode instructions if configure determines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92871
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristopher.kuhlman at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fbbc4c24fd7ba87e0c47cd965ae624afba6fa375
commit r10-5954-gfbbc4c24fd7ba87e0c47cd965ae624afba6fa375
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:000c7a93bdf4040d7d0672fbb9b064eae3d78f5d
commit r10-5955-g000c7a93bdf4040d7d0672fbb9b064eae3d78f5d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
--- Comment #3 from pskocik at gmail dot com ---
jos...@codesourcery.com, that's interesting, but it seems like an unnecessary,
weird special case, considering that gcc already has a qualifier-dropping
mechanism that doesn't necessitate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] AVX512|[9 Regression] AVX512 FMA -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93072
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
This is not actually a nested function; it's another case of a non-nested
function (a valid declaration at block scope) wrongly being interpreted as
nested. Working on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93257
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith ---
I am trying to use these extensively as ways to collect related static
assertions in my test suite for and . By using
consteval rather then constexpr, I get notified if any code is unexpectedly
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo