https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95942
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
This doesn't look valid to me. In
[x...] { x; }...
we capture the entire pack, but then try to use only a single element. This
should be rejected because the use of x in the lambda body is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97918
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93083
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96960
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98128
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97059
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98128
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98131
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|`std::numeric_limits::qu |constant folding of NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97965
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
See also PR88683 and PR88173.
I notice that the match.pd REAL_CST patterns starting around line 4045 only
look at the RHS of the comparison, so that nan > inf is handled very
differently from inf < nan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
The fix looks safe to backport; it isn't a regression, but the number of
duplicate reports argue for making an exception.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97943
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
I think we should reject trying to clear the padding of a flexible/zero-length
array, with error rather than sorry. And handle an array at the end of a
struct like any other array. Nobody should be using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21796
Bug 21796 depends on bug 20408, which changed state.
Bug 20408 Summary: Unnecessary code generated for empty structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93083
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92446
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92576
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17232
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56838
Bug 56838 depends on bug 17232, which changed state.
Bug 17232 Summary: [DR 1640] classes and class template specializations treated
differently w.r.t. core issue #337
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17232
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84938
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86943
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |8.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85648
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49830=edit
Fix
This patch depends on the one for bug 67343, and similarly is waiting for the
resolution of ABI issue 38.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49828=edit
WIP Fix
Here's my current patch for this bug, but I think I'm going to hold off on it
pending the resolution of ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49829=edit
Follow-on patch
And this one fixes ->:: according to the current ABI, but also holding for the
issue resolution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85648
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-19
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brennan at umanwizard dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89818
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98398
Bug ID: 98398
Summary: demangler fails on function parameter from enclosing
parameter-type-list
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98332
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Started with r6-7607-g52228180f1e50cbb.
Rather, with r10-986-g9b9eb42a4168c342e5cd71b13d21e63ba7e1b7ab.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97704
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96045
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Nathan, this PR points out that your change to EOF location means that we no
longer show the last line of source to give context for the error. Why not
give the EOF token a location of the end of the last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90537
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 90537, which changed state.
Bug 90537 Summary: Implement P1286R2, Contra CWG DR1778
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90537
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91581
Bug 91581 depends on bug 90537, which changed state.
Bug 90537 Summary: Implement P1286R2, Contra CWG DR1778
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90537
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97388
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91367
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91367, which changed state.
Bug 91367 Summary: Implement P1099R5: using enum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91367
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> I can confirm the warning but I'm not sure the bug is in the middle end
> code. Let me CC Jason for his comments.
>
> The warning triggers for the MEM_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97918
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 86252, which changed state.
Bug 86252 Summary: Abstract class in function return type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97841
Bug ID: 97841
Summary: [C++17] is_invocable handling of incomplete return
type is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97566
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Yeah, adding restrict there is just wrong; the constructor is called outside
the function, and could e.g. stash a pointer to the object in a global
variable. What we actually want is to treat this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98744
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98744
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> looks strange, isn't DECL_HAS_IN_CHARGE_PARM_P (fn) false on all
> base constructors (as those are the abstract ctors with the in_charge
> parameter removed and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98744
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49977
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49977=edit
possible patch to elide more copies
This implements a suggestion I made in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98570
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98802
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98802
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98717
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97566
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97874
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98570
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97874
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98929
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98926
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98929
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
Bug ID: 98939
Summary: [C++23] Implement P1787R6 "Declarations and where to
find them"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
URL: http://wg21.link/p1787r6
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98941
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100796
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 51012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51012=edit
fix
Testing this fix now. Making a suitable testcase for the testsuite will be a
bit tricky...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
1 - 100 of 1131 matches
Mail list logo