https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87239
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Dominique, my apologies, I don't know why my browser did send the form data
twice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
Bug ID: 87241
Summary: A hang problem for c++filt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87240
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87239
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 87240 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #1)
> The check is easy enough to delete:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> index c5bf822cd24..a8e6dd389b0 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87239
Bug ID: 87239
Summary: ICE in deferred-length string
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87240
Bug ID: 87240
Summary: ICE in deferred-length string
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69103
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86982
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86982
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Sep 6 00:38:13 2018
New Revision: 264139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264139=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86982, -Wreturn-local-addr and std::move and std::forward.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 7:21 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Doing a "&" operation on a function pointer looks bad.
No, I misread this line "_12 = SR.13_1 == operator!=;". It looks like
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86779
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86779, which changed state.
Bug 86779 Summary: Cris port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86779
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Created attachment 44664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44664=edit
S.cpp.112t.ifcombine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 8:50 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Then I believe SRA is not the culprit, you probably need to trace what
> happens to SR.13 afterwards and whether it is correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86779
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed Sep 5 23:14:42 2018
New Revision: 264134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264134=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/86779
* config/cris/cris.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #24 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 11:53 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I prefer just forcing the use of vsprintf with a larger buffer, it avoids
> adding more complexity to the code.
Will test in next build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 8:50 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Then I believe SRA is not the culprit, you probably need to trace what
> happens to SR.13 afterwards and whether it is correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59372
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59372
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87109
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87109
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 5 21:17:47 2018
New Revision: 264132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264132=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/87109, wrong overload with ref-qualifiers.
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87238
Bug ID: 87238
Summary: Redundant Restore of $x0 when memcpy always returns
the first argument.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87237
Bug ID: 87237
Summary: __atomic_load on 8-byte-sized, 1-byte-aligned struct
is not atomic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86957
--- Comment #5 from Indu Bhagat ---
Proposed patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00367.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86116
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Sep 5 19:22:53 2018
New Revision: 264131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264131=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-05 Janus Weil
Backported from trunk
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84640
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Command line required:
$ gfortran -c ./gfortran.dg/array_simplify_1.f90 ./gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90
./gfortran.dg/simplify_cshift_1.f90 ./gfortran.dg/simplify_eoshift_1.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84640
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Still going wrong in the fortran testsuite:
../../trunk/gcc/fortran/simplify.c:2174:9: runtime error: pointer index
expression with base 0x09d7eda8 overflowed to 0xfffc0314c058a5e8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87231
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Similar issue to PR 69744. OpenBSD config should just remove that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattias.ellert at physics dot
uu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87185
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87185
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Sep 5 17:32:26 2018
New Revision: 264129
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264129=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87185] ICE in prune-lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87232
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87236
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87236
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
IIRC this is due to a tuning for generic and if you do -mcpu=Intel it won't go
via memory. Basically on some AMD hw the path via memory is faster than the
path between the sse and gprs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87236
Bug ID: 87236
Summary: Using union to reinterpret from integer to floating
point goes via memory
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87235
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
g++ -v gives:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
OFFLOAD_TARGET_DEFAULT=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87235
Bug ID: 87235
Summary: g++ doesn't implement sparse initialisation of arrays
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
Bug ID: 87234
Summary: GCC should warn if template parameter redefines
default argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I prefer just forcing the use of vsprintf with a larger buffer, it avoids
adding more complexity to the code.
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #22)
> I prefer the first approach although it might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233
Bug ID: 87233
Summary: Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard
revision (?)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87232
Bug ID: 87232
Summary: modular inverse not used for is-multiple test
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52665
--- Comment #4 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Author: aldot
Date: Wed Sep 5 15:31:13 2018
New Revision: 264128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264128=gcc=rev
Log:
PR52665 do not let .ident confuse assembler scan tests
A branch with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28277
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My patch missed a case for num_put, which I'll fix.
Here's a crash test for codecvt::do_length in codecvt_members.cc:
#include
int main()
{
using namespace std;
auto& cvt =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87141
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
@Richard Biener do you need more information for this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I prefer the first approach although it might loop if there is an
error. Probably, it needs
to check if the current __cs_size is less than the new __cs_size before
doing a retry.
Another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28277
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87231
Bug ID: 87231
Summary: stdatomic.h: No such file or directory on OpenBSD 6.3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 8:50 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Then I believe SRA is not the culprit, you probably need to trace what
> happens to SR.13 afterwards and whether it is correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87230
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87221
--- Comment #3 from coypu ---
I think the change in bug 81523 to make -static imply no PIE might be wrong, as
static PIE is a thing.
It might be more right to limit that change only for configurations that don't
support static PIE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #7)
> On 2018-09-05 4:55 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
h
i386-pc-solaris2.11
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 9.0.0 20180905 (experimental) [trunk revision 264125] (i386-pc-solaris2.11)
GCC error:|
| in df_bb_refs_record, at df-scan.c:3342 |
| Error detected around
/vol/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This should never fail:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/locale_facets.tcc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/locale_facets.tcc
@@ -1000,7 +1000,11 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_LDBL
// First try a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87184
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
r263931 introduced the problem.
Unfortunately, I don't get a core dump and the behavior is different in build
at -j2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87230
Bug ID: 87230
Summary: GCC should warn if [[fallthrough]] is used in the last
case in a switch
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 4:55 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
> gcc61.fsffrance.org unfortunately seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87229
Bug ID: 87229
Summary: ICE: tree code 'call_expr' is not supported in LTO
streams
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87134
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So I've applied a patch that might fix the originally reported segfault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87134
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 5 11:44:13 2018
New Revision: 264125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264125=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-05 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/87134
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The *mov_hardfloat64 pattern has constraint Y without also having Z.
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Sep 5 11:28:49 2018
New Revision: 264124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264124=gcc=rev
Log:
Group switch cases in switch lowering (PR tree-optimization/87205).
2018-09-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87228
Bug ID: 87228
Summary: num_put::_M_insert_float uses stack inefficiently
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Dimov from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > I'm not sure here Y are different types here and member access based on
> > the type is distinct.
>
> Yes, one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux |powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87137
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed gcc-8 r264123.
changes.html remains to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87137
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:42:59 2018
New Revision: 264123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264123=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87137] GCC-8 Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> +#ifdef __hpux
> + if (__len == -1)
> + return __s;
> +#endif
N.B. I really don't want to just abort here, nor assume that __len is valid,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87217
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:33:41 2018
New Revision: 264121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264121=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87217
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87162
--- Comment #7 from Wen Yang ---
This patch will make it more robust:
# git diff
diff --git a/gcc/trans-mem.c b/gcc/trans-mem.c
index 1d4eb80..326e1c4 100644
--- a/gcc/trans-mem.c
+++ b/gcc/trans-mem.c
@@ -2099,6 +2099,9 @@ gate_tm_init (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87137
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed trunk r264119
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rpirrera from comment #9)
> The patch cannot be applied to the compiler we are using (GCC 5), we get a
> function not defined error.
> Is it possible to have a patch for GCC 5 too?
>
> Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87137
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:04:58 2018
New Revision: 264119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264119=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/87137] GCC-8 Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87185
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87185
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Sep 5 09:59:08 2018
New Revision: 264118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264118=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87185] ICE in prune-lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87221
--- Comment #2 from coypu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is related to bug 81523. How did you configure GCC?
Configured with nothing related to default pie:
export ac_cv_func_freelocale=no
export
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87226
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87225
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Shane Kerr from comment #0)
> I am curious how this build ever works at all on any system!
Because on most systems NULL is defined to 0 not std::nullptr_t and 0 can be
implicitly converted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87225
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 5 09:40:35 2018
New Revision: 264117
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264117=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-05 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/87225
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87225
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 5 09:39:34 2018
New Revision: 264116
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264116=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-05 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/87225
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
