https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89941
Bug ID: 89941
Summary: sanitizer fails to build on mips-unknown-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81025
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89917
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 3 04:48:45 2019
New Revision: 270111
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89917 - ICE with lambda in variadic mem-init.
A mem-initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89940
Bug ID: 89940
Summary: Template substitution causes segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89917
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
caused by r269512, the fix for PR88419.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89906
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
caused by r269512, the fix for PR88419.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
works on the trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89906
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89895
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89895
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89927
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89938
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89939
Bug ID: 89939
Summary: messages for translation must not contain embedded
macro parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89938
Bug ID: 89938
Summary: inconsistent wording regarding assumed shape
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #14 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 46077
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46077&action=edit
Add libphobos_test_name var
I'll just post this before I retired.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89937
Bug ID: 89937
Summary: For example code, which is valid as either C or C++,
optimization seems much better for C
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
--- Comment #5 from Roland Illig ---
I wouldn't classify bug 89936 as trivial as it strongly recommends to write a
linter, and that might take a while. Especially since the GCC project seems to
avoid these consistency linters; at least that's my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
Just as a reference, I wrote a little linter just for fun 2 years ago. Since it
was February 2017, it was most likely targeted at GCC 7.
https://github.com/rillig/translation-team-de/blob/master/proofread.lua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
And just in case the punctuation in this particular message is fully
intentional: Please document it why it needs to be exactly this way. It looks
too much like a mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936
Bug ID: 89936
Summary: wrong punctuation in tree-profile.c
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79878
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
Two years later, nothing has changed.
As the German translator, I refuse to translate these messages. There is really
nothing a GCC user could take away from a message like "incorrect entry in
label_to_block_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85184
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Summary|T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #13 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #12)
>
> They differ by libphobos_run_args, not by compilation flags.
>
> Maybe I'm running these tests in a lazy way, but would appending the
> execution args to the na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89921
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code get the correct cost is there (in estimate_num_insns):
case GIMPLE_ASM:
{
int count = asm_str_count (gimple_asm_string (as_a (stmt)));
/* 1000 means infinity. This avoids o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #12 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
> > --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
> > Created attachment 46069 [details]
> > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46069&action
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-04/msg3.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It seems to be that this happens for huge basic blocks, and the combiner
tries to combine pairs of instructions that are far apart. This is unlikely
to work often, and the cost is quadratic in # insns,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
One of the reasons why big vectors don't work seems to be the assumption in
TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS() that they can't be bigger than 2^31. But fixing this
function alone doesn't seem to be sufficient.
inline po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89932
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely a dup of bug 67694.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89935
Bug ID: 89935
Summary: [Arm] Return from interrupt on Cortex-R52 must use
eret instruction
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> > So shall I resubmit my original patch, or is Steve's comment#11 better?
>
> I'ld take Steve's conditions, but your wording for the errors!-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89932
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89934
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #18 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de ---
Am 02.04.19 um 20:48 schrieb anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org:
> I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So shall I resubmit my original patch, or is Steve's comment#11 better?
I'ld take Steve's conditions, but your wording for the errors!-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
but Thomas persuaded me to be less strict.
So shall I resubmit my or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the patch in comment 11 is quite close to the Harald's original patch
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89934
Bug ID: 89934
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tree_fits_uhwi_p, at tree.c:7237
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933
Bug ID: 89933
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in merge_decls, at
c/c-decl.c:2517
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:37:14 2019
New Revision: 270104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:37:14 2019
New Revision: 270104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89932
Bug ID: 89932
Summary: ICE in must_pass_in_stack_var_size_or_pad, at
calls.c:5824
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Note that r270046 introduced the same thing into gcc 8.
Yes, and r270047 into gcc 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #13 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that r270046 introduced the same thing into gcc 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
--- Comment #7 from Дилян Палаузов ---
As noted at https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406 this does
work with clang+gold and clang+lld, but not with clang+bfd.
As this does not work with gcc+gold, the problem is not in the linker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80055
--- Comment #9 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Frederic Marchal from comment #8)
> Two years later, I appear to be the only active translator. I translated all
> the messages. So, cutting down the number of messages is not an issue I feel
> ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89931
Bug ID: 89931
Summary: Incorrect compiler error with temporary object used as
function arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89927
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot
org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 17:05:59 2019
New Revision: 270102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 17:05:59 2019
New Revision: 270102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89930
Bug ID: 89930
Summary: - -Wl,--wrap= incompatible with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Bug ID: 89929
Summary: __attribute__((target("avx512bw"))) doesn't work on
non avx512bw systems
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #20)
> Sometimes life can be easy.
>
> We need to make -fzero-initialized-in-bss the default for
> gfortran.
Actually, no. I checked with a wrong version of the com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89646
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The warning is unconditional, but it should be easy to replace the 9
> with some suitable option.
I meant "replace the 0".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47660
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
Bug 77278 depends on bug 68649, which changed state.
Bug 68649 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] note: code may be misoptimized unless
-fno-strict-aliasing is used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80174
Bug 80174 depends on bug 68717, which changed state.
Bug 68717 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] New (bogus?) warnings when compiling some
gfortran.dg tests with -flto after r231239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
Bug 77278 depends on bug 68717, which changed state.
Bug 68717 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] New (bogus?) warnings when compiling some
gfortran.dg tests with -flto after r231239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:45:57 2019
New Revision: 270096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: skip outer loop in get_all_loop_exits (PR 84206)
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:39:22 2019
New Revision: 270095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: fixup reset of first_insn (PR 85876)
2019-04-02 Andrey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80055
--- Comment #8 from Frederic Marchal ---
Two years later, I appear to be the only active translator. I translated all
the messages. So, cutting down the number of messages is not an issue I feel
overly concerned with :-)
Removing the internal er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
dup of PR 89906?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89919
--- Comment #4 from Roman Dubtsov ---
@Martin: I'm not sure how useful this info after bisection has been done, but
FWIW 8.1.0 ICEs and and 7.4.0 does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #34 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #33)
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
> >
> > --- Comment #32 from Segher Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
$ cat main.ii
template class> struct a;
template class T1> struct b { a c; };
template class F> struct d;
template class F> struct d;
$ g++ -std=c++17 main.ii
main.ii:3:66: error: template parameter 'te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
Bug ID: 89928
Summary: [8 Regression] errors out in c++17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89927
Bug ID: 89927
Summary: Inconsistent behavior in std::regex when optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89926
Bug ID: 89926
Summary: -Wmain warning about return type doesn't show location
of the return type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83797
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> FWIW the C front-end highlights the function name not the return type:
>
> vm.c:1:6: warning: return type of ‘main’ is not ‘int’ [-Wmain]
> void main() { }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
--- Comment #5 from Paul le roux ---
On the GCC trunk version on godbolt.org there is still a difference between the
two cases, but it seems to have turned around. The noprofile case has
vector::resize partially inlined and in the profile case, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
Bug ID: 89925
Summary: [8,9 Regression] Wrong array bounds from ALLOCATE with
MOLD
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81171
Paul le roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89924
Bug ID: 89924
Summary: [missed-optimization] Function not de-virtualized
within the same TU
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is what I meant in code. Passes testing.
Index: semantics.c
===
--- semantics.c (revision 270062)
+++ semantics.c (working copy)
@@ -9548,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Valentine from comment #3)
> I'm experiencing a very similar problem. Is that a problem with gcc 8 and
> later?
Yes, as stated in the summary and comment 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
Valentine changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||v at vsamko dot com
--- Comment #3 from Vale
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #9 from Richard Purdie
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Purdie from comment #6)
> > Its part of a Yocto Project build and we would only ever build it once so we
> > don't need/want the overhead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] G++ gives |[8 Regression] G++ gives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #9 from 康 珊 ---
That's great! Thank you very much for your support :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
>> Ignoring the test results, multilib handling seems to be worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68567
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record, the tests in comment 1 compile without ICE since GCC6.
Unless someone beats me, I am planning to package the patch in comment 4 and
submit it to the mailing lists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89923
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Especially as the C++2a change breaks previously valid code:
printf("%s\n", u8"");
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
