http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55036
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems like there's some wrongdoing in handle_char_store; we have
else if (si != NULL)
{
si = unshare_strinfo (si);
si-length = build_int_cst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
Seems that only skipping coalescing if we aren't coalescing SSA_NAMEs works.
... but it doesn't pass the testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42014
Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Bug ID: 57232
Summary: wcstol.c:213:1: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #1 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30082
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30082action=edit
zip with the different configure.out and make.out
zip with the different configure.out and make.out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #3 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30083
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30083action=edit
my touched configure.host for newlib
I added some switches I need to configure.host for newlib
this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #4 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Hi,
Any file in particular?.
I did a git pull on Wednesday on the 4.8 branch. (and binutils and newlib)
I attached the sh I use to build my cross compiler and the only file I
touched.
Daniel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to daniel.calcoen from comment #4)
Hi,
Any file in particular?.
The one where the ICE occurs, i.e. preprocessed wcstol.c in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #6 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
The sources I use
wcstol.c
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libc/stdlib/wcstol.c;h=e23254dc217854801d1c8be76cfc6501c505cc61;hb=053c8948b774d92ab009b30e70a9e65c11bbd5c3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The file /home/dcalcoen/gitMirror/newlib/newlib/libc/stdlib/wcstol.c
preprocessed
by appending -save-temps to the command-line that crashes the compiler. The
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
Bug ID: 57233
Summary: Vector lowering of LROTATE_EXPR pessimizes code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57203
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57216
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57195
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30084
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30084action=edit
Proposed x86 patch that triggers the problem
Attached x86 patch triggers the problem,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #8 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30085
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30085action=edit
wcstol.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30086
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30086action=edit
gcc49-pr57230.patch
And untested improvement for 4.9+ only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39080
Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
Bug ID: 57234
Summary: gcov 4.7.3 segfaults when reading Clang's .gc* files.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
--- Comment #1 from Magnus Reftel magnus.reftel at gmail dot com ---
For reference: the Clang bug got ID 15954.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yep, it is just heuristic here. We may get more cureful at -Os (i.e. not so
optimistic about the optimization oppurtunities), but last time I played with
this it actually resulted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at
version 4.9.0 20130510 (experimental) [trunk revision 198772] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. -O2 ~/ice.ii
/home/ryan/ice.ii: In member function 'bool
google::protobuf::DescriptorBuilder::OptionInterpreter::SetAggregateOption(const
google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor*, google::protobuf::UnknownFieldSet*)':
/home
: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130510 (experimental) (GCC)
Regards, Peter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30089
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30089action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30090
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30090action=edit
original source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30091
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30091action=edit
4.8.1 generated code of write2()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #4 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30092
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30092action=edit
clang 3.4 generated code of write2()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57235
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg zackw at panix dot com ---
It might be good to include stores to nonzero offsets in the test case, and
stores to bytes that used to be internal NULs, something like
int main(void)
{
char s[] =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We have just one strlen pass instance, and even if we optimize the first strlen
there, having strlen pass duplicate constant propagation functionality just to
handle this weird
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Bug ID: 57237
Summary: Upstreaming the rtems multilib gcc patch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||v850*-*-rtems*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've thought more like:
int
main ()
{
char p[] = foobar;
int len = strlen (p);
p[1] = 'O';
p[6] = 'R';
int len2 = strlen (p);
foo (len, len2);
}
thus, there shouldn't be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch cannot be merged as is. It includes at least 4 separate issues.
+ v850 multilibs
+ sparc64-rtems definining SVR4
+ WCHAR issues
+ stddef.h issue
Patches can only be single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing with this patch for just the v850:
2013-03-26 Ralf Corsépius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org
* config/v850/t-rtems: Use multilibs from gcc 4.8.0.
diff -Naur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #8 from Zack Weinberg zackw at panix dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
We have just one strlen pass instance, and even if we optimize the first
strlen
there, having strlen pass duplicate constant propagation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57196
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That case is for the
if (idx 0)
{
si = get_strinfo (idx);
...
}
block in there, and si != NULL si-length != NULL_TREE TREE_CODE
(si-length) == INTEGER_CST is what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Conner josh.m.conner at gmail dot com ---
Exactly - there's no need to truncate every iteration, we should be able to
safely do it when the loop is complete.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Bug ID: 57238
Summary: GCC passes --gdwarf2 to assembler despite -gdwarf-4 on
command line
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54577
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Bug ID: 57239
Summary: GCC cannot handle inner/nested class templates with
non-type parameter packs that were declared in the
outer/containing class
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
That case is for the
if (idx 0)
{
si = get_strinfo (idx);
...
}
block in there, and si != NULL si-length !=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see how this is wrong. Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should be ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
Bug ID: 57240
Summary: decltype() on a template non-type parameter causes
internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57092
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #5 from cynt6007 at vandals dot uidaho.edu ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4)
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #3)
Patch committed to 4.7, 4.8, and head.
It would have been nice if you'd give the author of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
Bug ID: 57241
Summary: GCC still issues -Wmultichar warnings despite a
#pragma diagnostic ignored -Wmultichar directive
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
I don't see how this is wrong.
It's wrong to emit dwarf2 because I asked for dwarf4 explicitly.
Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy (in
C++ at least), we have got many long standing PRs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
Bug ID: 57242
Summary: gcc ignores precompiled headers unless the .gch and
TU's are compiled with certain combinations of -g flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think there are other bugs about promoting things and then truncating only
when needed. I also think Kai is working on a pass that does that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end and
maybe even predefines too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to etherice from comment #0)
I put a #warning in the my_pch.hpp file to be sure of when PCH were being
ignored (though, the long delay also made it quite obvious).
You
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57217
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See draft patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-05/msg00035.html (see
patch review for what is missing).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy
(in C++ at least), we have got many long standing PRs.
Well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #3 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end
and maybe even predefines too.
I think you may have read the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #3 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy
(in C++ at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57243
Bug ID: 57243
Summary: Using auto in range based for with templated container
in templated function requires extraneous template
qualifier
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
--- Comment #2 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
Already fixed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57092 ***
Yep that's it, fixed 3 days after my April 27 version of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #4 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end
and maybe even predefines too.
I created a simpler test to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
Bug ID: 57244
Summary: Missed optimization: dead register move before
noreturn fn call unnecessary store/load or reg
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30093
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30093action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30094
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30094action=edit
original source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30095
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30095action=edit
disassembly dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #3)
int foo2(int N) {
int v[N];
for ( auto a : v)
if (a) return a;
return 0;
}
works, though was similar to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10)
FWIW, I fully agree with Jason: VLAs are very restricted and don't even allow
for forming references to them, so that the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57245
Bug ID: 57245
Summary: Floating-point constant truncation ignores
-frounding-math
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57246
Bug ID: 57246
Summary: ICE on lambda in template function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57247
Bug ID: 57247
Summary: ICE when referencing 'this' in lambda function inside
array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dblaikie at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57247
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57246
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
Bug ID: 57248
Summary: string parameter to constexpr functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
100 matches
Mail list logo
