https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79702
Bug ID: 79702
Summary: AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX([17]) does not work with
GCC=7.0.1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79701
Bug ID: 79701
Summary: #pragma ignored "-Wcomment" has no effect
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
WRT c#26.
Yes, I would agree that finding CSE's that way is rather gross, but
significantly less so than what will be required to address this problem in
phi-opt.
Pattern matching this is going to be si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79697
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31920
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31705
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29887
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29741
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79699
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Ah, thanks for the reference. It sounds like GCC should call mpfr_free_cache
before exiting as is recommended in section 4.7 Memory Handling of the MPFR
manual (as I just discovered by searching for the funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79699
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The only mpfr_free_cache call I see in GCC is in the Fortran front end.
Without such a call on exit, leaks in MPFR need not be meaningful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Bug ID: 79700
Summary: std::fabsf and std::fabsl missing from
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79699
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gforge.inria.fr/tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79697
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
It makes sense to convert realloc(0, n) to just malloc and the rest just works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79699
Bug ID: 79699
Summary: small memory leak in MPFR
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61596
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79698
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79698
Bug ID: 79698
Summary: spurious -Wunused-local-typedefs on a typedef used by
a template
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79691
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg01480.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79697
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79697
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Ditto for __builtin_strdup and __builtin_strndup. Both of those calls can (and
arguably should) be eliminated. If they're not eliminated (but even if they
are) a warning on them can and arguably should be is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79697
Bug ID: 79697
Summary: unused realloc(0, n) not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-Wunused-result warns on the attribute warn_unused_result usage. If these
functions are not marked that way in glibc, it is maybe a glibc bug.
I don't think we should mark these as warn_unused_result really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696
Bug ID: 79696
Summary: missing -Wunused-result on calls to malloc() and
calloc()
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79361
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE |[5/6 Regression] ICE
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79361
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Feb 23 23:20:58 2017
New Revision: 245692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-02-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79361
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
An alternative, and hopefully still valid testcase:
struct A
{
char c;
};
int main()
{
static char A::* q;
A a;
return &(a.*q) - &a.c;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 23 22:05:19 2017
New Revision: 245690
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245690&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79389
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79663
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79663
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 23 22:02:01 2017
New Revision: 245689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-21 Bin Cheng
PR tree-optimization/79663
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 23 21:43:03 2017
New Revision: 245688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79578
* tree-ssa-dse.c (clear_bytes_wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Note this was extracted from the main motivator for path splitting, so it's
probably wise to make sure we get this right.
The key is blob of code:
for ()
{
...
if (bufferstep)
outputbu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79636
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79695
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79695
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79695
Bug ID: 79695
Summary: spurious -Wunused-variable on a static global of a
type declared unused
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79268
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Feb 23 19:29:40 2017
New Revision: 245687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-23 Bill Schmidt
PR target/79268
* gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79689
--- Comment #3 from Maciej Waruszewski ---
Full output that I'm getting:
*** buffer overflow detected ***:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.3.1/cc1plus terminated
=== Backtrace: =
/usr/lib/libc.so.6(+0x70c4b)[0x7f2742ab2c4b]
/usr/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek ---
I see, thanks for pointing that out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #16 from Volker Reichelt ---
According to [expr.mptr.oper] the code in comment 15 has undefined behavior,
because the second operand of ->* is the null-pointer-to-member-value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79636
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The bug is also present in GCC-4.7 which uses the old reload pass. But GCC-4.4
works ok on the test.
The culprit is in udivmod. GCC-4.4 generates a shift instead of udivmod
generated by GCC-4.7 and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79692
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79455
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think the most relevant issue here is that we are usually generating a call
to memset here, but apparently on rare occasions we do not. That kind of
inconsistency is troubling, to say the least.
As Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79455
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79693
Bug ID: 79693
Summary: Memory buffer handling - additional optimization
proposal
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu |powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Slightly reduced original testcase:
struct A
{
char c;
};
int main()
{
static char A::* const q = nullptr;
A a;
return &(a.*q) - &a.c;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE |[5/6/7 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79689
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79691
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79692
Bug ID: 79692
Summary: -Wformat-overflow false positive?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79691
Bug ID: 79691
Summary: -Wformat-truncation suppressed by (and only by) -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79690
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> But an extra assert like the following triggers during bootstrap so we can't
> really avoid the casting (in all cases).
>
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-address.c
> ===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79665
--- Comment #13 from PeteVine ---
Still, the 5% regression must have happened very recently. The fast gcc was
built on 20170220 and the slow one yesterday, using the original patch. Once
again, switching away from Cortex-A53 codegen restores the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Feb 23 15:18:16 2017
New Revision: 245684
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245684&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 68749: S/390: Disable ifcvt-4.c for -m31.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Traveling now, back home end of March.
Did you check the value of variable "len" maybe it's zero so it's not
really a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, I see cp_convert_to_pointer does
212 /* A NULL pointer-to-data-member is represented by -1, not by
213 zero. */
214 tree val = (TYPE_PTRDATAMEM_P (type)
215 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79690
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
But an extra assert like the following triggers during bootstrap so we can't
really avoid the casting (in all cases).
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-address.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40818|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Uh. (sizetype) q is folded to -1 in constant_value_1. DECL_INITIAL of "q" is
-1, that's what build_zero_init_1 did:
177 else if (TYPE_PTR_OR_PTRMEM_P (type))
178 init = fold (convert (type, nullptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Created attachment 40818 [details]
> patch
>
> Patch I am testing for the loop splitting cost model. I still believe loop
> splitting on its own is not prof
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79690
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
This is similar to PR66768 but is somewhat special because the vectorizer
generates
unit size
align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x768ba348
precision 8 min max >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33056
--- Comment #6 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33056
--- Comment #4 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79690
Bug ID: 79690
Summary: Vectorizer drops gs: prefix
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49588
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33056
--- Comment #2 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33056
--- Comment #2 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
What's changed in r231197 is that previously we had
return = (int) ((long int) ((char *) &a + (sizetype) q) - (long int)
&a.c);
but now
return = (int) ((long int) ((char *) &a + 18446744073709551615) -
(lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79689
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #11 from Volker Reichelt ---
The following testcase returns 1 for me since at least GCC 4.7.
clang (3.2 - 4.0.0rc2), VS (2012, 2015) and ICC all return 0.
struct A
{
char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79684
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 23 12:38:39 2017
New Revision: 245681
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-23 Richard Biener
PR c/79684
* gimple-parse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79684
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79689
Bug ID: 79689
Summary: ICE with trailing return type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71017
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Thu Feb 23 12:19:05 2017
New Revision: 245680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-23 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/71017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Ok, so the Comment 4 testcase started to abort with r217814 and stopped with
r229167.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79688
Bug ID: 79688
Summary: ICE with a RTL test-case and -O1 provided
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78301
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And std::declval()->inner() doesn't work either:
ne.cc:5:59: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct a’
void outer() const noexcept( noexcept( std::declval()->inner() ) ) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 40818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40818&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing for the loop splitting cost model. I still believe loop
splitting on its own is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks valid to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79683
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 23 11:43:51 2017
New Revision: 245679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245679&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/79683
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Not sure, but clang++ accepts this without warning and the program returns 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, the first question is: is this valid C++ code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71568
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Duh, I can reproduce the abort with gcc-5 on my laptop, but not on another
machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #5 from Volker Reichelt ---
The problems actually seem to be older.
We experienced crashes already with GCC 4.8.2, but don't have a small testcase
for this, yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71568
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja ---
After trying to minimize the code, this still seems to trigger the same error:
#include
template using whatever = void;
template struct has_f;
template
struct has_f> {};
struct X {
void f() const {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Hmm, I was using:
struct A {
char c;
};
int main() {
char A::*p = &A::c;
static char A::*const q = p;
A a;
if (&(a.*q) - &a.c)
__builtin_abort();
}
and this triggers with gcc-5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
commit 69f54cf56ac077735cc599dc0db060143ba3713c
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 2 19:04:43 2015 +
Introduce cp_fold_rvalue.
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold_maybe_rvalue, cp_fold_rvalue):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79687
Bug ID: 79687
Summary: [6/7 Regression] Wrong code with pointer-to-member
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686
Bug ID: 79686
Summary: Variadic template expansion into concept with leading
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79665
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Huh, never mind. That sdiv was there even before this changes, it is unrelated
to this. I don't have see how there could be a slowdown from this change
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo