https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81081
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #11)
> Created attachment 45652 [details]
> Tentative patch
>
> Patch proposed in comment #10, added ChangeLog and rationale, bootstrapped
> and reg-tested.
Hi Jakub,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45789=edit
gcc9-pr70341.patch
Untested fix for e.g.:
#define A(N) void foo##N (int);
#define B(N) A(N##0) A(N##1) A(N##2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89436
Bug ID: 89436
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in
glibc/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/e_pow.c (internal
compiler error: in decompose, at rtl.h:2266)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87412
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Feb 21 13:41:53 2019
New Revision: 269068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269068=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: Check -mindirect-branch/-mfunction-return with -fcf-protection
Issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87609
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45788=edit
second part
This is the second part (was already posted for review in October), I've
removed
the extra checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #14 from Andrey Drobyshev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> However:
> g++-8 -fsanitize=address global4.c -fno-common && ./a.out
> =
> ==12713==ERROR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
This seems to make sense. One should clone extern inline only if something
useful can be propagated across I suppose. Patch is OK with some comment and
testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87412
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87609
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45787=edit
first part of a fix
This makes PTA always populate (and overwrite) CLIQUE == 1, partitioning
cliques
into "function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89422
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00e33f81 in field_byte_offset (decl=0x7699d7b8,
ctx=0x7fffb5e0, cst_offset=0x7fffb4a8)
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89429
Bug ID: 89429
Summary: ICE with __func__
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
Bug ID: 89430
Summary: A missing ifcvt optimization to generate csel
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89364
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81081
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You can try, but it seems upstream doesn't really care.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89421
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
related to PR 54935.
I think there are other related recorded bugs too but I can't find them right
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
Bug ID: 89431
Summary: CPP integer macros not defined
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89429
--- Comment #1 from Valentin ---
Sorry, this was the wrong attachment.
The proper code is:
template
void f(Function&& function) {
// `0` is not special. Can be any value of any type.
function(0);
}
// No error when this template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This transformation is not valid for the C11/C++11 memory model.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89429
--- Comment #2 from Valentin ---
Comment on attachment 45782
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45782
Example code
template
void f(Function&& function) {
// `0` is not special. Can be any value of any type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89363
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89392
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 21 08:03:40 2019
New Revision: 269065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269065=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/89392
cp/
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81081
--- Comment #14 from Denis Khalikov ---
IMHO, this is a really hard to face in real word.
You, probably, have to write your program on assembly and then let "as" to add
section with debuginfo, because "as" can not generate dwarf tag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84536
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE with |[7/8 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89421
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems to work fine even if the dead returns_twice call is found later, e.g. on
int a;
void foo (void);
__attribute__ ((returns_twice)) int bar (void);
void baz (int, int);
static inline void
inl (int x)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess on Linux nothing ever calls __cxa_rethrow_primary_exception, so it
isn't a big deal that libasan provides a wrapper for it.
If you want to introduce ASAN_HAS_CXA_RETHROW_PRIMARY_EXCEPTION, it would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 21 12:04:26 2019
New Revision: 269067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269067=gcc=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/88714
* constraints.md (q): Remove.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89302
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
--- Comment #21 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 45786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45786=edit
Patch for libstdc++ multilib include issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87412
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #4)
> >We need to be careful with loads
> >or stores, for instance a load might not trap, while a store would,
> >so if we see a dominating read access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
Bug ID: 89432
Summary: FAIL:
libphobos.unittests/druntime/{static,shared}/core.time
on CentOS 5.11, Linux 2.6.18
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89302
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Feb 21 11:00:47 2019
New Revision: 269066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269066=gcc=rev
Log:
[omp] Move NE_EXPR handling to omp_adjust_for_condition
2019-02-21 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89433
Bug ID: 89433
Summary: Repeated use of the OpenACC 'routine' directive
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89365
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Not true for:
$ cat global5.c
const char c1[] = "a";
int main()
{
return *([0]+3);
}
$ gcc-8 -fsanitize=address global5.c -fno-common && ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
Bug ID: 89434
Summary: [8/9 Regression] wrong code with -Og and
__builtin_mul_overflow()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
--- Comment #4 from Jiangning Liu ---
>We need to be careful with loads
>or stores, for instance a load might not trap, while a store would,
>so if we see a dominating read access this doesn't mean that a later
>write access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
--- Comment #4 from MarkEggleston ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> program test
> use iso_fortran_env
> implicit none
> write(*,*) integer_kinds
> #ifdef __GFC_INT_1__
> write(*,*) "__GFC_INT_1__ defined"
> #else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
--- Comment #6 from Jiangning Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #4)
> > >We need to be careful with loads
> > >or stores, for instance a load might not trap, while a store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Mostly likely check will be adding an HAVE_CLOCK_BOOTIME test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87609
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87609
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Header-less version of the testcase:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the other side, after going into SSA, the ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER successors
would have PHIs for the SSA_NAMEs and thus ICE like this wouldn't happen, so in
theory we could do something in the cfg pass itself
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
--- Comment #2 from MarkEggleston ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> These macros have been introduced at revision r267464.
>
> Looking at the code I don't see why __GFC_REAL_* are defined, but not
> __GFC_INTEGER_*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
While playing with the patch I noticed that there's a significant different in
between GCC 7 and GCC8:
$ cat global4.c
int f;
int main()
{
return *(+1);
}
$ g++-7 -fsanitize=address global4.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #0)
> libphobos testing on x86_64 CentOS 5.11 fails a testcase:
>
>
> There is the following code in time.d:
>
> static bool clockSupported(ClockType c)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89365
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ramana, any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87609
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Header-less version of the testcase:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
__attribute__((always_inline)) static inline void
copy (int *restrict a, int *restrict b)
{
*b = *a;
*a = 7;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87609
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
Hmm, I missed your patch as well as this bug. Will try to study this, just not
sure how much I can recap after long time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81081
--- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> You can try, but it seems upstream doesn't really care.
Done: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58493
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
program test
use iso_fortran_env
implicit none
write(*,*) integer_kinds
#ifdef __GFC_INT_1__
write(*,*) "__GFC_INT_1__ defined"
#else
write(*,*) "__GFC_INT_1__ undefined"
#endif
#ifdef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89435
Bug ID: 89435
Summary: wrong code with -O1 -march=armv4
-fno-forward-propagate with __builtin_sub_overflow()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #17)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #6)
> [...]
> > > Running target unix
> > > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d execution test
> > > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d -g execution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45790=edit
gcc9-pr89434.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89440
Bug ID: 89440
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in
vect_create_epilog_for_reduction, at
tree-vect-loop.c:5502
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83453
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
The test was fixed to handle error at 404 on hppa64 and s390:
inline int ATTR ((aligned (4)))
finline_hot_noret_align (int); /* { dg-warning "ignoring attribute .aligned
\
\(4\\). because it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89435
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89437
Bug ID: 89437
Summary: [9 regression] incorrect result for sinl (atanl (x))
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||collison at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86119
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |8.4
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89425
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88572
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88690
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] c++17|[7/8 Regression] c++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:09:03AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89438
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89435
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In particular, the wrong combination is I think:
Trying 77 -> 78:
77: r164:SI=r125:QI#0&0xff
REG_DEAD r125:QI
78: r124:SI=r164:SI+r162:SI
REG_DEAD r164:SI
REG_DEAD r162:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86119
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Feb 21 18:01:41 2019
New Revision: 269070
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269070=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/86119
* class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89425
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88380
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] Sequence |[7/8 Regression] Sequence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86829
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89431
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:44:25AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>4 8 10 16
> __GFC_REAL_10__ defined
> __GFC_REAL_16__ defined
These are needed for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88690
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 21 18:16:15 2019
New Revision: 269073
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269073=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88690 - C++17 ICE with empty base in aggregate.
Base fields for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89438
Bug ID: 89438
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in
glibc/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/e_pow.c (internal
compiler error: in decompose, at rtl.h:2266)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this started with r197520.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89439
Bug ID: 89439
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at
tree-ssanames.c:268
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83453
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The checking was relaxed to allow the attribute to specify a less restrictive
alignment than the minimum provided by the target without triggering the
warning, so the xfails can be removed. The rationale for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83453
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-02-21 2:00 p.m., msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83453
>
> --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
> The checking was relaxed to allow the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89422
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89420
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
And another:
template
struct S {
explicit(int{1}) S(int, int);
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
