https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98375
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98525
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
successfully_inlined = expand_call_inline (bb, stmt, id, to_purge);
maybe_remove_unused_call_args (cfun, stmt);
/* This used to return true even though we do fail to inline in
some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89055
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong location with |wrong location with macros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103659
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup of bug 90703.
The only reason I knew there was a dup is because I just saw it today when I
was going through the C++ bug reports. So I was not doing any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103659
Bug ID: 103659
Summary: Declared function template can be deleted later
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 10.3.0, 7.2.0
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Dec 10, 2021, Jeff Law wrote:
> The patch is clearly safe. My question is should we have caught this
> earlier in the call chain?
Callers will call try_store_by_multiple_pieces if set_storage_via_setmem
fails. setmem doesn't necessarily need min and max len to do its job,
so if we were to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81202
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Full testcase:
#include
#include
template constexpr bool
IsPtrC=std::is_pointer_v&&(std::is_same_v
||std::is_same_v>);
template concept IsPtrC2=IsPtrC;
template using TEST=int;
int main(int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e8067041d1d69da02bd7578f58abc11eb35a04b
commit r12-5906-g2e8067041d1d69da02bd7578f58abc11eb35a04b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91622
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 68858, which changed state.
Bug 68858 Summary: Cannot use fold expression in requirements with two
parameters packs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68858
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68858
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||12944
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101962
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103562
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1250dcee74985eaeacae3b85e5ec78937225d322
commit r11-9375-g1250dcee74985eaeacae3b85e5ec78937225d322
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101962
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de0656f98640a57cd9dfdb090264afaa06ba46cc
commit r11-9374-gde0656f98640a57cd9dfdb090264afaa06ba46cc
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103614
--- Comment #1 from getchar_gnu at hotmail dot com ---
Not sure if related, but something like x%13==8 && x>17 && x<146 can also
reduce some code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86430
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-05-20 00:00:00 |2021-12-10
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-09-17 00:00:00 |2021-12-10
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning for the test case in comment #12 isn't directly related to ranges:
it's issued simply because the invalid statement is in the IL and not
eliminated by DCE (the secret functions don't let it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nick Desaulniers from comment #5)
> Was it ever consider that the behavior should be changed, rather than
> documented?
Seems like changing an already documented and released feature seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096
--- Comment #5 from Nick Desaulniers ---
While the changes to gcc/stmt.c and the second asm goto statement in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr98096.c in
While doing tests of the PCH changes, I noticed that all the
plugin tests were being omitted from m32 Darwin under some
permutations of flags. It turned out to be a broken config
test - it was not removing -mdynamic-no-pic properly.
We now use a C++ compiler so that we need to process CXXFLAGS
We include libgcc_tm.h to provide a prototype for this shim
so add that to the make dependencies.
tested on x86_64-darwin, pushed to master, thanks
Iain
Signed-off-by: Iain Sandoe
libgcc/ChangeLog:
* config/t-darwin: Add libgcc_tm.h to the dependencies
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103562
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Should be fixed by the above commit on trunk for gcc 12.
Probably should backport this; keeping this open until that's done.
libgccjit was failing to set the DECL_CONTEXT of function RESULT_DECLs,
leading to them failing to be properly handled by the inlining machinery.
Fixed thusly.
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as r12-5903-ga2f4b4b76cdd0a4150e82e69fae4a70c54b523d2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103562
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2f4b4b76cdd0a4150e82e69fae4a70c54b523d2
commit r12-5903-ga2f4b4b76cdd0a4150e82e69fae4a70c54b523d2
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
Hi!
OK to push the attached "testsuite: Be more informative for ICEs"?
Grüße
Thomas
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der
Snapshot gcc-10-20211210 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20211210/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On 12/9/2021 3:18 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
The conversion of a MEM address to ptr_mode in
try_store_by_multiple_pieces was misguided: copy_addr_to_reg expects
Pmode for addresses.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, testcase verified with a cross to
aarch64. Ok to install?
On 12/9/2021 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
The testcase confuses the code that detects min and max len for the
memset, so max_len ends up less than min_len. That shouldn't be
possible, but the testcase requires us to handle this case.
The store-by-mult-pieces algorithm
My r11-2202 was trying to enforce [dcl.type.auto.deduct]/4, which says
"If the placeholder-type-specifier is of the form type-constraint[opt]
decltype(auto), T shall be the placeholder alone." But this made us
reject 'constexpr decltype(auto)', which, after clarification from CWG,
should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88118
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Fixed in GCC 10 by r10-2105-gcb50701ec2c7a (I found a slight missed
> optimization but I will file that as a seperate issue).
The slight missed optimization is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102958
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Let's focus on the missed-optimization issues in this PR, and address the
broader diagnostic issues in PR 103483.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38172
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
Not exactly with an empty struct we warn twice.
That is take:
struct MyClass{};
typedef struct MyClass MyClass;
MyClass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103606
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
Dear all,
when accessing CLASS components we need to ensure that the
corresponding class container has already been built.
Invalid code, e.g. the testcase in PR103606, may otherwise
generate segfaults due to invalid reads.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline / branches?
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103658
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, what I was really after is trying to see if the analyzer would print
the conditionals involved in the subscript expressions. But in the simple test
case in comment #0 there are no conditionals.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #25)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> > For:
> >
> > void f(){
> > int i = 2;
> > (i+i);
> > }
>
> This case is fixed on the trunk:
>
> : In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #25 from
On 10/12/21 21:20 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Ping
Oh sorry, Jakub already replied to this (after I mentioned it on IRC)
and approved it.
Un-ping!
On 09/11/21 17:51 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Now that GCC is compiled as C++11 there is no need to keep the C++03
implementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103658
Bug ID: 103658
Summary: missing -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value at -O1
and below for an array access
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86870
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC, clang, MSVC and ICC all reject it.
On 12/10/2021 5:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 05:59:54PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
/tmp/6140018_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:3920:0:
./gt-aarch64-sve-builtins.h: In function 'void
Ping
On 09/11/21 17:51 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Now that GCC is compiled as C++11 there is no need to keep the C++03
implementation of gnu::unique_ptr.
This removes the unique-ptr.h header and replaces it with in
system.h, and changes the INCLUDE_UNIQUE_PTR macro to INCLUDE_MEMORY.
Uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103601
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103606
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Last
On 12/10/2021 8:41 AM, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote:
The function comment for adjust_field_tree_exp says this special case
is for handling trees whose operands may contain pointers to RTL instead
of to trees. But ever since r0-59671, which fixed/removed the last two
tree codes for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lebedev.ri at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103645
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103657
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28682
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103647
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
well f should be optimized to return true while g should be optimized to return
false.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103610
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3459ef2e9f9cd4d3ed64c9bc44282534a24987b8
commit r11-9372-g3459ef2e9f9cd4d3ed64c9bc44282534a24987b8
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.schackier at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103607
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103657
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
D:\hg\fast_io\tests\0017.error>g++ -o error error.cc -Ofast -std=c++2b -s
-march=native -I../../include -lntdll -fuse-ld=lld
D:\hg\fast_io\tests\0017.error>error
errc:no_such_file_or_directory
clang++ -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103657
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
D:\hg\fast_io\tests\0017.error>g++ -o error error.cc -Ofast -std=c++2b -s -flto
-march=native -I../../include -lntdll
D:\hg\fast_io\tests\0017.error>error
D:\hg\fast_io\tests\0017.error>clang++ -o error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103657
Bug ID: 103657
Summary: GCC can no longer throw EH on x86_64-w64-mingw32
hosted 64 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103656
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
rm -rf
/home/cqwrteur/canadian/x86_64-w64-mingw32/libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/12.0.0/install-tools
rm: cannot remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103656
Bug ID: 103656
Summary: make install-strip -j cannot find
x86_64-w64-mingw32-strip for canadian compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Robin Dapp writes:
> Hi Kewen, Richard,
>
> thanks for the comments, I addressed them in the attached v4.
Sorry again for the slow review. I only have some very minor
comments left:
> Bootstrap and regtest are good as before.
>
> Regards
> Robin
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md
We use processing_template_decl in two slightly different ways: as
a flag to signal that we're dealing with templated trees, and its
magnitude is also used as a proxy for the current syntactic template
depth. This overloaded meaning of p_t_d is conceptually confusing and
leads to bugs that we end
Hi,
I would favor adding support for this kind of initialization to libgccjit.
Does it also support the libgccjit equivalent of the following C module,
which contains forward references in the struct initializers?
struct bar bar;
struct foo foo;
struct foo
{
struct bar *b;
};
struct bar
{
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 05:51:27PM +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Now that GCC is compiled as C++11 there is no need to keep the C++03
> implementation of gnu::unique_ptr.
>
> This removes the unique-ptr.h header and replaces it with in
> system.h, and changes the
Joel Hutton writes:
> ok for backport to 11?
Yes, thanks.
Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103607
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b1dae4d33285643c5f51d828aa6f31ffbfc33b7
commit r9-9863-g8b1dae4d33285643c5f51d828aa6f31ffbfc33b7
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103607
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:45cbfabe01878c3efd8b24f3fef06baf48983308
commit r10-10330-g45cbfabe01878c3efd8b24f3fef06baf48983308
Author: Harald Anlauf
Hello,
The build of a VxWorks toolchain relies a lot on system headers
and VxWorks has a few very specific features that require special
processing. For example, different sets of headers for the kernel
vs the rtp modes, which the compiler knows about by way of -mrtp
on the command line.
If we
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 17:07, Olivier Hainque via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The attached patch helps fix a build failure of libstdc++
> on some variants of VxWorks where the system headers expose
> an "isblank" macro.
>
> I understand this kind of thing normally is handled through
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103655
Bug ID: 103655
Summary: "x" does not exist on windows and dos
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 17:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:11:04AM -0700, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On 12/10/21 9:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 09:35:50AM -0700, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > > The above was just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103562
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 16:35, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 12/10/21 3:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 01:50, Martin Sebor via Libstdc++
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/9/21 5:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> On 12/9/21 4:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
I was curious if our auto(x) works in contexts like bit-field width
and similar. It appears that it does. Might be worth adding a test
for it.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast10.C: New test.
---
1 - 100 of 297 matches
Mail list logo
