https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks: I was confused (as I think will many folks be). The examples for
designated initialisers in C++20 on cppreference cite this behaviour as being
useful^. Of course I understand it can be misused, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96877
Bug ID: 96877
Summary: Erroneous warning when default initializing function
pointer types defined using std::declval
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96863
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|9.4
Summary|[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96863
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96871
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1da918e153b60ef81686dc5cd110d8608d962c79
commit r11-2958-g1da918e153b60ef81686dc5cd110d8608d962c79
Author: Carl Love
Date: Thu Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
Does r11-2957-gbc62bfb0f43eeada02cb924e3cb5457a399b01c0 fix the failing tests
seen on Darwin?
In any case, I should probably also fix:
> (a) looks like region_model::on_call_pre is erroneously treating a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96860
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc62bfb0f43eeada02cb924e3cb5457a399b01c0
commit r11-2957-gbc62bfb0f43eeada02cb924e3cb5457a399b01c0
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee7bfbe5eb70a23bbf3a2cedfdcbd2ea1a20c3f2
commit r11-2956-gee7bfbe5eb70a23bbf3a2cedfdcbd2ea1a20c3f2
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96860
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18056e45db1c75aa209fa9a756395ddceb867a88
commit r11-2955-g18056e45db1c75aa209fa9a756395ddceb867a88
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96876
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mateusz.pusz at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
When fixing, let's make sure that bug 96874 is fixed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96874
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96872
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at marehr dot
dialup.fu-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96863
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96871
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Fails to parse templated|[11 Regression] Fails to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96876
Bug ID: 96876
Summary: missing check for destructibility of base classes in
aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96869
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Hmmm, so you dont want to allow generic vector types? This is unlike GNU
> c/C++.
Correct, the D spec has had the following entry added.
> Implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 93529, which changed state.
Bug 93529 Summary: Implement P1009R2, Array size deduction in new-expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96763
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96764
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73a2b8dd17dbc02c0c7e6286e90f17833aa50906
commit r11-2954-g73a2b8dd17dbc02c0c7e6286e90f17833aa50906
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96763
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d1b4edc5fff834e8f924b20dd021ded7a21d2d2
commit r11-2953-g0d1b4edc5fff834e8f924b20dd021ded7a21d2d2
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96764
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecdb93224c56189a129e97c556fe6b78e1b15a63
commit r11-2952-gecdb93224c56189a129e97c556fe6b78e1b15a63
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14319
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14319
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96875
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a defect report against the C standard about this case and a much
older gcc bugzilla filed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96875
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96875
Bug ID: 96875
Summary: Aliased pointers to union members result in different
output with optimisation level.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873
--- Comment #1 from Mateusz Pusz ---
Similar error but in a different line happens for:
```
#include
template
struct basic_fixed_string {
CharT data_[N + 1] = {};
constexpr basic_fixed_string(CharT ch) noexcept { data_[0] = ch; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96874
Bug ID: 96874
Summary: Internal Compiler Error: Segmentation fault on class
NTTP
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873
Bug ID: 96873
Summary: Internal compiler error in alias_ctad_tweaks
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96859
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96872
Bug ID: 96872
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96871
Bug ID: 96871
Summary: Fails to parse templated constructor in template class
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96870
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-August/054955.html
ame is not very helpful for the
average user:
Error: Type mismatch in argument ‘p’ at (1); passed CLASS(__class_main_p_T0_p)
to CLASS(__class_main_p_T1_t)
Seen on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.3.1 20200831
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.2.1 20200831
GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.0.0 20200831 (experimental)
Thank you very m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96869
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmmm, so you dont want to allow generic vector types? This is unlike GNU c/C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96869
Bug ID: 96869
Summary: __vectors unsupported in hardware should be rejected
at compile-time
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d503cd98713a41aad34ade2b9b0d9973efb21e11
commit r11-2951-gd503cd98713a41aad34ade2b9b0d9973efb21e11
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't know.
fold-const.c has:
#define START_FOLD_INIT \
int saved_signaling_nans = flag_signaling_nans;\
int saved_trapping_math = flag_trapping_math;\
int saved_rounding_math = flag_rounding_math;\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
Should we handle flag_trapping_math at the same time?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #7 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder if this other case works properly when compiled with -m64. Trying to
generate a stxvp with a 32-bit address seems odd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49160
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49160=edit
gcc11-pr96862.patch
Untested patch. e and f initializers are still evaluated at runtime and will
depend on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96860
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also C++ [expr.const] p12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96847
--- Comment #2 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Ok thanks, just wanted also to clarify that the size increase was not actually
due to changing array sizes, but it was difference between GCC-9.2 and GCC-10.2
for the _same_ array lengths. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
"[Note: This document does not require an implementation to support the
FENV_ACCESS pragma; it is implementation-defined (15.8) whether the pragma
is supported. As a consequence, it is implementation-defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96867
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49159
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49159=edit
gcc11-pr96867.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #4 from Laurent Rineau
---
At the compiler level, I do not think the bug is related to `-std=c++2a`. That
flags was there only to trigger the bug from the recent versions of libstdc++
since:
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96861
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|---
Component|libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|loop not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
Bug ID: 96868
Summary: C++20 designated initializer erroneous warnings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96867
Bug ID: 96867
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected parm_decl, have var_decl in
handle_omp_array_sections_1, at cp/semantics.c:5086
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96866
Bug ID: 96866
Summary: ICE in print_operand_address, at
config/rs6000/rs6000.c:13560
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f089569851ca9c8a81400dd8a159f86636ed20ec
commit r11-2949-gf089569851ca9c8a81400dd8a159f86636ed20ec
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f980cdba9e2fc0cc3f50c2c790f53b4dcd9dbe5
commit r10-8693-g9f980cdba9e2fc0cc3f50c2c790f53b4dcd9dbe5
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk we fail the SLP reduction vectorization because a VEC_PERM SLP
reduction
operation is not supported by epilogue generation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #4)
> Pay attention that it's not just AVX.
> '-mavx2 -mfma -Ofast' generates different code, but at the end gives the
> same wrong result.
> Unfortunately, I have no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
OK so the issue is that SLP_TREE_TWO_OPERATORS as it used to be cannot be used
to drive live operation vectorization (it does it twice but with only the
intermediate vector results). The easiest is to not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is a compiler bug. The arithmetic must be valid in constexpr. It
does not have to give the same result as it would during runtime evaluation, so
I think constexpr evaluation should not be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69031
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96865
Bug ID: 96865
Summary: ICE in hash_rtx_cb, at cse.c:2548
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96855
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
r11-571-ge740f3d73144abbca1ad98a04825c6bd63314a0b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96857
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
r11-1301-54cdb2f5a5b01a482d7cbce30e7b738558eecf59
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96856
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Can you please paste git commits in a pretty format:
>
> $ git gcc-descr --full e740f3d73144abbca1ad98a04825c6bd63314a0b
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96864
Bug ID: 96864
Summary: loop not vectorized due to cost model
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96863
Bug ID: 96863
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in
output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5223
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
--- Comment #4 from Michael_S ---
Pay attention that it's not just AVX.
'-mavx2 -mfma -Ofast' generates different code, but at the end gives the same
wrong result.
Unfortunately, I have no AVX512 hardware to test, but wouldn't be surprised if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96551
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96551
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cbd82044b21679fa533445f373374576f638da1
commit r10-8692-g2cbd82044b21679fa533445f373374576f638da1
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96551
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aa71af09350b9ff4d2fad88a440b682545682ec
commit r11-2947-g1aa71af09350b9ff4d2fad88a440b682545682ec
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
Bug ID: 96862
Summary: -frounding-math -std=c++2a error: '(1.29e+2 *
6.9314718055994529e-1)' is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96861
Bug ID: 96861
Summary: Integer min/max optimization failed under
-march=skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44612
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
For what it is worth, still occurs with on mainline (GCC 11).
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Confirmed.
>
> DSE doesn't remove memset or memcpy calls.
>
> We also do not have a flag to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
There's also a seemingly related case where gcc ICES in branch
if (GET_MODE_CLASS (to_mode) == MODE_PARTIAL_INT)
instead.
The following testcase is reduced from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31892
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96860
Bug ID: 96860
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in apply_ctor_to_region, at
analyzer/store.cc:445
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96806
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Feng Xue :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e11c4b7f837bc6b4c22b1f5bf41a9d0608d256be
commit r11-2945-ge11c4b7f837bc6b4c22b1f5bf41a9d0608d256be
Author: Feng Xue
Date: Mon Aug 31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0106300f6c3f7bae5eb1c46dbd45aa07c94e1b15
commit r11-2944-g0106300f6c3f7bae5eb1c46dbd45aa07c94e1b15
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96810
--- Comment #4 from Wei Wentao ---
>>--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>>Actually sorry, the diagnostics clang emits is not about the bug mentioned in
>>the testcase, but about something different.
>>And while the bug described in the
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
