https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Roberts ---
Tested with:
gcc-6-20160313
and in-tree:
gmp-6.1.99-20160321
mpc-1.0.3
mpfr-3.1.4
isl-0.16.1
On:
armv7l Arch Linux Arm (Raspberry Pi 3) (not bootstrapped yet due to build time)
This also builds ok with new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70295
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 22 08:11:14 2016
New Revision: 234392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70295
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr): Call gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70300
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 22 08:14:24 2016
New Revision: 234393
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234393&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70300
* config/i386/i386.md (cvtsd2ss splitter):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70350
Bug ID: 70350
Summary: ICE with -fcheck=all and array initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70325
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70350
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70329
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 22 08:28:49 2016
New Revision: 234394
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70329
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vecop_qi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70325
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70350
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70300
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70329
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 6+ so far, needs backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70350
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
--- Comment #2 from Коренберг Марк ---
Please read carefully. All conditions are the same, except different branching.
So, gcc choose "rep stosl" by unknown cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70342
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
1011cp_fold_function (tree fndecl)
1012{
1013 cp_walk_tree (&DECL_SAVED_TREE (fndecl), cp_fold_r, NULL, NULL);
1014}
so we walk duplicates more than once. Changing it to use
cp_walk_tree_w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70293
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70096
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm still getting the second error even with latest trunk, so can only
partially reproduce it:
pr70323.C:7:37: in constexpr expansion of ‘overflow_if_1(1)’
pr70323.C:7:39: error: overflow in constant expres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70204
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the missing first error, the function is cp_folded into
return = i == 0 ? -2147483648(OVF) : 2147483647;
Thus, I wonder if VERIFY_CONSTANT or something similar shouldn't be done either
in cxx_eval_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70351
Bug ID: 70351
Summary: [C++11] static constexpr member cannot define with a
const qualifier
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38054&action=edit
gcc6-pr70323.patch
This seems like it would work, but haven't bootstrapped/regtested it yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69917
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich ---
> Looking through Solaris configs I see two places where transparent aliases are
> not followed. This patch should fix this. Any help with test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70352
Bug ID: 70352
Summary: [C++11] auto cannot be used in the type-id of a
new-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Thanks - I'm testing a fix for that and will adjust the match.pd patterns
accordingly (without adding a cmp ? -1 : 0 -> VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR pattern).
I verified the original aarch64 testcase still works after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70352
--- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
Sorry, I forgot to paste an error message.
= error message =
prog.cc: In function 'int main()':
prog.cc:3:19: error: invalid use of 'auto'
auto p = new (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Bug ID: 70353
Summary: static_assert + assert + c++14 crashes GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Bug ID: 70354
Summary: [6 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 -march=broadwell
and -march=skylake-avx512.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70325
--- Comment #5 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Mar 22 11:09:03 2016
New Revision: 234395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70325
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c (def_builtin): Handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70325
--- Comment #6 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Mar 22 11:13:44 2016
New Revision: 234396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70325.
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c (def_builtin): Handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70306
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Mar 22 11:31:53 2016
New Revision: 234398
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234398&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ChangeLog entries for PR ipa/70306
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70306
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed in GCC-5 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Minimized testcase:
>
> --cut here--
> extern int scanf (const char *, ...);
> extern void *memset (void *, int, __SIZE_TYPE__);
>
> int
> main () {
> char buf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> The problem is actually in expr.c expanders, in this particular case
> set_storage_via_setmem expander. These expanders loop from narrowest mode to
> wider modes:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
Bug ID: 70355
Summary: ICE: in simplify_subreg_concatn, at lower-subreg.c:617
with -funroll-loops -mavx512f
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Hmm, indeed. Of course there is no way to iterate from largest to narrowest
> mode...
Well, you could just iterate from narrowest to largest, but instead of do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70342
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Also fails with -mprefer-avx128 -mavx2 (needs avx2 for integer vector shift it
seems).
Not yet spotted the actual issue we run into...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70290
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70290
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Tue Mar 22 12:31:12 2016
New Revision: 234399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR target/70290
* call.c (build_conditional_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
Bug ID: 70356
Summary: gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70357
Bug ID: 70357
Summary: [openacc][gomp4] ICE on reduction (+:sum) private
(sum)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 22 13:23:00 2016
New Revision: 234401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70333
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70358
Bug ID: 70358
Summary: Several
26_numerics/random/binomial_distribution/operators
etc. tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70358
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
About the shifting of negative value, wonder if it isn't actually UBSAN bug,
Marek, does C really say that -1 << 0 is invalid, or just -1 << 1?
But, it is trivial to change the testcase so that it is not que
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > For stage1, I wonder if it can't move earlier, say before the combiner. If
> > it could, then we could split the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70162
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #10)
Thanks for the clarification, Nick.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Bug ID: 70359
Summary: Code size increase for ARM compared to gcc-5.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
James, could you please have a look? AFAICS, none of the issues mentioned in
PR testsuite/68232 apply to the sparcv9 case: sparc/sparc.h (BRANCH_COST) is >
0.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simpler testcase:
unsigned long long a[64], b[64];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
a[i] <<= (b[i] - 0x12ULL);
}
int
main ()
{
int i;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70340
--- Comment #3 from gccBugs at haatschii dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
Not sure whether I understood you correctly, but I don't think that this is
purely a problem with the complexity/recursion depth. For example the sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Why couldn't STV just "vectorize" AND and NOT patterns and let the combiner
> combine that in the vectorized code?
I think the only thing we miss for that is cor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that there is a PARM_DECL in the IL of the function
which is not listed among DECL_ARGUMENTS of the function:
The function we are in is:
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr(cfun->decl)
foo._omp_fn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Mar 22 14:20:49 2016
New Revision: 234403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69993: improvements to wording of -Wmisleading-indentation
gcc/c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 22 14:38:42 2016
New Revision: 234405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70251
* ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70343
--- Comment #2 from tower120 ---
The workaround for all versions is use lambda that doesn't CAPTURE this, e.g.
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/e223ddb156d817c1
struct Empty{};
template
struct Data{
int properties_parcel4[10];
Em
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Why couldn't STV just "vectorize" AND and NOT patterns and let the combiner
> > combine that in the vectorized code?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
Bug ID: 70360
Summary: --enable-vtable-verify
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's unsurprising, I'm pretty sure the vtable verification changes the ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
... and the testsuite doesn't know how to test the ABI for every configuration
that alters the ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> My #1 bet would be FSM threading.
I doubt it as if I read the asm differences correctly, GCC 6 just no longer
does store with post increment and that causes reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
Bug ID: 70361
Summary: Obviously false code in if not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-Wunreachable-code does nothing now and has not for a few years now. Support
for it was removed as it provided too many false positives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
That's odd. I do have local changes in my tree but I verified it on three
other machines. I've retested with today's pristine top of trunk on
powerpc64le, still with no errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 38054 [details]
Hmm. Something else must be going on. I've applied your patch on powerpc64le
but it hasn't changed anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57498
Paul Brannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||curlypaul924 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #4 from James Greenhalgh ---
Hi, sorry I missed this. I need to write a better filter for bugs I'm CCed on,
I'll work on that.
I'm hitting the limits of what I can guess from the Sparc machine files. I
don't understand why we get an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57498
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I see the problem: It's -Wall that suppresses the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> I see the problem: It's -Wall that suppresses the error.
Yeah, seems with -Wall ctx->quiet is true (probably desirable, for some kind of
warning we don't want to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
