https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61559
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #17 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #16)
Done. Joost, feel free to add your testcase from comment #3 if you want to
(I can't write a hello world in fortran so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #6 from Adrien Hamelin adrien.hamelin+gcc at gmail dot com ---
I also wanted to say, my code may be not optimal or may be done in an easier
way or else (and if you have comments on it i'm ok with that), but what i think
what is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, the default assumption, when someone posts a 77000 line preprocessed
program with strange runtime behavior, is that the program is buggy.
You have to convince us that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #17)
Thanks Marc, I don't have write access, but I can try to dg-ify the testcase
from comment #3.. however, first test, it still seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #18)
The following now fails, so'll reopen this PR. It is at least related to
zeroing pvec twice in a row, and doesn seem to happen if I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, I compared generated assembly before/after revision 206552.
BEFORE)
@ frame_needed = 1, uses_anonymous_args = 0
movip, sp
stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp, ip,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am testing the following:
--- tree-ssa-strlen.c(revision 211967)
+++ tree-ssa-strlen.c(working copy)
@@ -1646,20 +1646,22 @@ handle_builtin_memset (gimple_stmt_itera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33001
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33001action=edit
Dump of cunroll/ivopt/ira/reload passes after revision 206552 for the
preprocessed file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
Adrien Hamelin adrien.hamelin+gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33000|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61602
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61598
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61595
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, does it work if you do
typedef int vint __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
and use vint in as the type for vr?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
Adrien Hamelin adrien.hamelin+gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33002|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61560
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 25 08:37:37 2014
New Revision: 211970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211970root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61560
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61588
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Bug 58876 depends on bug 61600, which changed state.
Bug 61600 Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic pop leaves warnings enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61600
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61600
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you - that test case is much more useful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61595
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
decltype(iter += i) is Iter so you return a reference to a temporary which
goes out of scope
Sorry, temporary is the wrong word - a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61603
Bug ID: 61603
Summary: ICE in gcc/gcc/toplev.c:337
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsbj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61603
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
Ilya Palachev iliyapalachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61420
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61500
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61488
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61499
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61500
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.1 |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61445
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61453
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61604
Bug ID: 61604
Summary: missing line numbers in a sanitizer backtrace from an
OMP region
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59193
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #13 from Adrien Hamelin adrien.hamelin+gcc at gmail dot com ---
I'm sorry that i made you lose your time :-(
I thought that kind of code would trigger a warning though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61595
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Meyer gcc-bugzilla at mailhell dot seb7.de ---
Richard: The typdef gets optimized away very quickly, so I needed to trick
around a bit. But the array won't use the typedef anyway, the produced DWARF is
equal to what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
Bug ID: 61605
Summary: Potential optimization: Keep unclobbered argument
registers live across function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61606
Bug ID: 61606
Summary: About GCC install, testing step (mostly check...)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
Bug ID: 61607
Summary: DOM missed jump threading and destroyed loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61595
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Optimizing block #5
1 COND 1 = i_1 ge_expr R_6(D)
1 COND 0 = i_1 lt_expr R_6(D)
LKUP STMT inter0p_13 = PHI inter0p_2
inter0p_13 = PHI inter0p_2(4)
2 STMT inter0p_13 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With the propagation limitation removed we get
Registering jump thread: (2, 4) incoming edge; (4, 5) joiner; (5, 7)
normal;
Cancelling jump thread: (2, 4) incoming edge;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61575
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, I can't convince gcc or clang to give a warning. Even address sanitizer
and undefined-behaviour sanitizer don't catch the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Jun 25 12:27:13 2014
New Revision: 211977
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211977root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-25 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Like with
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (revision 211969)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jun 25 12:43:05 2014
New Revision: 211978
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211978root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/61162
* c-parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
Bug ID: 61608
Summary: [4.10 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/epilog-1.c
scan-assembler tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61433
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you can reduce the testcase to a manageable size, I'll see why
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01692.html is not enough (it
should be, with -fkeep-inline-functions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-none-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does this issue get fixed by adding the peephole2 also at old place too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Marc:
struct Iter
{
Iter operator+=(int) { return *this; }
int operator*() { return i; }
int i;
};
Iter func(Iter iter, int n) {
return iter += n;
}
int main()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61595
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Meyer gcc-bugzilla at mailhell dot seb7.de ---
Ah, okay, thank you for the clarification, Jakub.
So this is indeed RESOLVED INVALID, sorry.
I am still sure I saw the example I gave, but can't seem to find it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #44 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #43 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks. In the stage before the one that fails, could you add
-fdump-tree-all-details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
--- Comment #2 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61609
Bug ID: 61609
Summary: running libraries compiled with different gcc versions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
Marc:
struct Iter
{
Iter operator+=(int) { return *this; }
int operator*() { return i; }
int i;
};
Iter func(Iter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for testing. I will sent a patch for it.
It seems after all that we need to run peephole2 pass twice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think what is important that if the other conditions besides mini_p != 0 are
not met, then control flow goes to basic blocks from which there is no path to
the bb with the use (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61609
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #3)
Thanks for testing. I will sent a patch for it.
It seems after all that we need to run peephole2 pass twice.
Bad for compile-time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61608
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49132
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 25 14:27:35 2014
New Revision: 211981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211981root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-06-25 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49132
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
gcc version 4.10.0 20140625 (experimental) [trunk revision 211980] (GCC)
Started happening at rev211959
https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61611
Bug ID: 61611
Summary: Incorrect exception rethrown from a function-try-catch
block when a nested try-catch executes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61611
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61598
--- Comment #3 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tbsaunde
Date: Wed Jun 25 16:02:04 2014
New Revision: 211985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211985root=gccview=rev
Log:
fix checking=fold
gcc/
PR bootstrap/61598
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61612
Bug ID: 61612
Summary: trunk revision 211984 winnt.c ‘hash_table_c’ does not
name a type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61612
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61610
--- Comment #1 from Sandra Loosemore sandra at codesourcery dot com ---
Hmmm, this looks like a bug in LRA exposed by the change to register alloc
order. In particular this comment in the code just above the assertion seems
to reflect an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61612
--- Comment #1 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tbsaunde
Date: Wed Jun 25 16:36:49 2014
New Revision: 211986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211986root=gccview=rev
Log:
fix typo in winnt.c
gcc/
PR c/61612
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61597
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61240
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Ed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61534
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61612
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61534
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
and then we could use from_macro_expansion_at and don't warn if it's true.
But the problem is with -ftrack-macro-expansion=0, since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
