https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
--- Comment #4 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to Xiong Hu XS Luo from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > So we ICE at the end of cgraph_edge::speculative_call_info:
> > (gdb) p ref
> > $4 =
> >
> > (gdb) p e
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
Bug ID: 92788
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in redirect_eh_edge_1, at
tree-eh.c:2313
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92766
Bug ID: 92766
Summary: [Rejects valid] pointer+0 erroneously treated as
rvalue
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
Bug ID: 92765
Summary: [10 Regression] Wrong code caused by folding of
-Wstring-compare since r276773
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92755
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92749
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Bug 92645 depends on bug 92751, which changed state.
Bug 92751 Summary: VN partial def support confused about clobbers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92751
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92751
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92751
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 3 10:46:52 2019
New Revision: 278931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278931=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92751
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91839
--- Comment #3 from tangyixuan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I can confirm GCC doesn't suggest l_24, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to
> expect it to do so after so many parse errors.
>
> If you fix the first two errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92764
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92735
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For the case reported here, Clang and EDG do reject it, but I'm not yet
convinced GCC is wrong to accept it.
The implicit instantiation of is_Foo causes:
"the implicit instantiation of the declarations,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92758
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I'd say the bug is in determine_min_objsize, which makes assumption that are
> simply not valid in GIMPLE after optimizations.
> Before fre3 we have:
> _2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
But isn't the case magic could be considered a variable length field since it
is st the end of the struct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> But isn't the case magic could be considered a variable length field since
> it is st the end of the struct?
At end of struct or not doesn't really matter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
--- Comment #5 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Tue Dec 3 11:13:38 2019
New Revision: 278932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278932=gcc=rev
Log:
musl: Fix invalid tls model in libgomp and libitm PR91938
Musl does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92744
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 08:23:06 2019
New Revision: 278924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278924=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/92744
* config/i386/i386.md (peephole2 for *swap): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92705
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 08:20:18 2019
New Revision: 278922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278922=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92705
* call.c (strip_standard_conversion): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92732
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 08:21:29 2019
New Revision: 278923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278923=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92732
* typeck2.c (digest_nsdmi_init): For bitfields, use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 08:19:04 2019
New Revision: 278921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278921=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92695
* constexpr.c (cxx_bind_parameters_in_call): For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92750
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
But these are offsetted/partial clobbers, and we can't track address-taken on
parts...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92734
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 09:20:43 2019
New Revision: 278925
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278925=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92734
* match.pd ((CST1 - A) +- CST2 -> CST3 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92766
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92764
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #2)
> Not a [10 Regression], then, although I could not reproduce it w/ 8.2.0.
8.2.0 fails as well for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91678
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Marek, are you still working on the patch?
Does it also fix the testcase from PR 92766?
template
void foo(T&& begin, T&& end);
void test()
{
unsigned char buffer[16];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92748
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92735
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Pawlowsky from comment #0)
> on a related not I sent to clang bug report where if value is not static the
> code will compile.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44175 (I think that's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ricardo Abreu from comment #7)
> Usually CLI switches aren't silently inoperative until you provide other
> switches.
Usually CLI applications don't have as many switches as GCC with as many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92734
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm wondering if we shouldn't adjust also the
/* (A +- B) - A -> +- B */
/* (A +- B) -+ B -> A */
/* A - (A +- B) -> -+ B */
/* A +- (B -+ A) -> +- B */
patterns. Say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92744
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92756
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 3 11:59:13 2019
New Revision: 278934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278934=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92645
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Toni Neubert from comment #15)
> I really cannot help you with this. I am sorry. I don't understand the
> compilers source code/internals at all. I just can thank you guys for your
> ongoing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92764
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] ICE in |ICE in gfc_procedure_use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92754
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92760
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Roman, are you going to submit these patches to the mailing list?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say the bug is in determine_min_objsize, which makes assumption that are
simply not valid in GIMPLE after optimizations.
Before fre3 we have:
_2 = _1->header.magic;
_3 = __builtin_strcmp (_2, "x");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #8 from Ricardo Abreu ---
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of admiration for GCC and the people behind!
It approaches perfection to a level that is very unusual in software.
Still, that does not amount to saying it is perfect. There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92705
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92732
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed on the trunk now, queued for backporting to 9 and 8 branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91025
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks! As per https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches patches should be
sent to the mailing list for review. They get missed/ignored when attached to
bugzilla. If this is your first patch for GCC it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92755
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #7 from Ricardo Abreu ---
Yes, the very next paragraph directs to tens of other paragraphs that mention
other switches. One has to read them SFINAE mode to discover the special
meaning of the general text. That may be considered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92767
Bug ID: 92767
Summary: [m68k]: Random ICE: verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
URL: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-sna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, determine_min_objsize calls compute_builtin_object_size with 2 rather
than 3, which means it is in this regard conservative and uses whole object
size rather than just subobject, we've been there in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Now, determine_min_objsize has been introduced for the strcmp_eq optimization
and maybe doing something conservative for the strcmp -> ~[0, 0] or [0, 0]
optimization there like get_base_address on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92734
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47406=edit
gcc10-pr92734-2.patch
Untested patch that implements that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
#include
struct S { int f[4]; };
__m128
foo (__m128 x)
{
const struct S a = { {0x, 0x8000, 0x, 0x8000}};
return _mm_xor_ps (x, _mm_load_ps ((float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92754
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47407=edit
Lightly tested patch
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, started with r218068, it was rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
clang seems to be happy with -ffast-math:
$ clang -O2 matrix.c -ffast-math && ./a.out
matrix.c:17:63: warning: incompatible pointer types passing 'int const[4]' to
parameter of type 'const float *'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Bug ID: 92768
Summary: Maybe a wrong code for vector constants
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91678
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry, I'll try to respond to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01042.html
soon.
It doesn't seem to fix Comment 4 though, will have to look why :/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
Bug ID: 92769
Summary: No way to set CR0[SO] on function return
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770
Bug ID: 92770
Summary: std::unordered_map requires both T and U to be
fully declared
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> trunk accepts with -fconcepts (?!?)
At r276764 it started to be accepted with -std=gnu++14 -fconcepts but is still
rejected with -std=gnu++17 -fconcepts or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even more reduced:
#include
__m128
foo (__m128 x)
{
int f[4] __attribute__((aligned (16)))
= { 0x, 0x8000, 0x, 0x8000 };
return _mm_xor_ps (x, *(__m128 *) f);
}
int
main ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly the ->equal_p () use in vector-builder elides the -0.0 since it
may appear "equal" to 0.0?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Even more reduced:
> #include
>
> __m128
> foo (__m128 x)
> {
> int f[4] __attribute__((aligned (16)))
> = { 0x, 0x8000, 0x,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92214
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
Bug ID: 92771
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Concept won't use default template
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template
concept one_or_two = true;
template
concept one = one_or_two;
template
constexpr void
foo()
{
if (one) // OK
{ }
if (one_or_two) // ERROR
{ }
}
gcc-8-branch accepts this with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92758
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 3 14:47:24 2019
New Revision: 278938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278938=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92758
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92758
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81202
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92771, which changed state.
Bug 92771 Summary: [9/10 Regression] Concept won't use default template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-11-19 00:00:00 |2019-12-3
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
> Perhaps related to:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01874.html
Yes, that is pretty much the same thing. One thing is whether it is safe or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92772
Bug ID: 92772
Summary: wrong code vectorizing masked max
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92762
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It looks to me like the whole else block with the BROKEN_VALUE_INITIALIZATION
guard is incorrect. The following test case aborts:
typedef int_hash IntHash;
hash_map > x;
static void test_hash_table ()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92773
Bug ID: 92773
Summary: GCC compilation with big array / header is infinite
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92774
Bug ID: 92774
Summary: ICE with defaulted three-way comparison function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 3 15:59:40 2019
New Revision: 278939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278939=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91363 - P0960R3: Parenthesized initialization of aggregates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
The __builtin_strcmp(ptr->header.magic, "x") call in comment #0 is undefined
because the two-element array ptr->header.magic is not a nul-terminated string.
The warning was designed to point that out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
