https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84582
Bug 84582 depends on bug 84596, which changed state.
Bug 84596 Summary: [8 Regression] internal compiler error: unexpected
expression '(bool)c' of kind implicit_conv_expr (cxx_eval_constant_expression)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84596
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84596
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 14 06:14:57 2018
New Revision: 258513
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258513&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84596
* semantics.c (finish_static_assert): Chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84743
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:41:19AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Yep, gfortran is missing a simplification. When
> > simplification of size(a) occurs, the int(1) is
> > still an expression wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #4)
> > Replacing the line
> >
> > INTEGER :: A(int(1))
> >
> > in comment #0 by
> >
> > INTEGER :: A(1)
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
Bug ID: 84859
Summary: bogus -Warray-bounds on a memcpy in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84858
Bug ID: 84858
Summary: wrong exception handling of std::function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78420
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #28)
> I can commit a patch that fixes the original testcase, but I now think that
> the resolution of https://wg21.link/lwg2450 requires compiler help of some
> k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82336
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 14 01:03:13 2018
New Revision: 258512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82336 - link error with list-init default argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61775
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61775
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Mar 14 00:45:45 2018
New Revision: 258509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/61775
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83916
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #5 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82336
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #24 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #23)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #22)
>
> > > SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL first tries to create a "model" schedule
> > > that keeps register down
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78420
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can commit a patch that fixes the original testcase, but I now think that the
resolution of https://wg21.link/lwg2450 requires compiler help of some kind, at
least for cases like comment 27. It effective
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
Dave Pagan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.pagan at oracle dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84855
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: v.reshetnikov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following C++ code is rejected by GCC 8.0.1 20180313 (tested with
https://godbolt.org/):
/* SOURCE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56422
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #23 from Wilco ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #22)
> > SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL first tries to create a "model" schedule
> > that keeps register down as far as possible and then uses that
> > to guide the "real" sched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84856
Bug ID: 84856
Summary: Bootstrap failure on riscv: comparison of integer
expressions of different signedness
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #22 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #21)
> Created attachment 43646 [details]
> Patch to reduce spills for Armv7
>
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #20)
> > (In rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
--- Comment #8 from Dave Pagan ---
Patch submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00621.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78420
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's a really horrible case:
#include
#include
struct X {
operator const X*() const { return this; }
};
X x;
X y;
int main()
{
std::less<> lt;
bool x_less_than_y = lt(x, y);
bool y_less_tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84855
Bug ID: 84855
Summary: structered bindings require "decomposed" type to be
copy'able
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #21 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 43646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43646&action=edit
Patch to reduce spills for Armv7
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #20)
> (In repl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Mar 13 20:42:49 2018
New Revision: 258504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-13 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/83712
* l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 82410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84843
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 13 20:32:54 2018
New Revision: 258503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84843
* decl.c (duplicate_decls): For redefinition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82565
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugzilla at szaszm dot tk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 81997, which changed state.
Bug 81997 Summary: [7/8 Regression] segfault while instantiating constrained
function template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81997
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81997
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82565
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jesse at mind dot net
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81918
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 81918, which changed state.
Bug 81918 Summary: [7/8 Regression] muddled Concept confuses compiler (segfault)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81918
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82565
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82565
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 13 20:22:31 2018
New Revision: 258502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82565 - ICE with concepts and generic lambda.
* pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84798
--- Comment #8 from Volker Reichelt ---
*** Bug 79525 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79525
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737
--- Comment #9 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7)
> Do I understand it correctly that you suspect that the new IPA-CP
> clone that is created from r256888 on is harmful? In that case, you
> want to test that by tryin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84798
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84541
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84349
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61775
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 13 18:58:15 2018
New Revision: 258501
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258501&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84720 - ICE with rvalue ref non-type argument.
* p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84839
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 13 18:57:10 2018
New Revision: 258500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258500&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84839 - ICE with decltype of parameter pack.
* pt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Ambiguous resolution of |Ambiguous resolution of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84854
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84854
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r239338.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84854
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84852
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David Malco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61775
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61775
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84852
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84854
Bug ID: 84854
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:4774
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Bug ID: 84853
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed
(expand_shift_1)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84852
Bug ID: 84852
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in calculate_line_spans, at
diagnostic-show-locus.c:1105
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> Nah, just the following - you removed LTO testing of prettyprinters
>
> Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-prettyprinters/prettyprinters.exp
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84833
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Just a note, as can be seen e.g. on
> > static volatile int a;
> > static int my_foo1 (void) { return 1; }
> > stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46921
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Mar 13 18:10:09 2018
New Revision: 258497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/46921 Lost side effect when struct initializer expression uses comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46921
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84839
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84850
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||84851
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84851
Bug ID: 84851
Summary: missing -Wclass-memaccess for a memcpy in a copy ctor
with a non-trivial member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 13, 2018 5:15:33 PM GMT+01:00, "nickc at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
>
>--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
>Hi H.J.
>
>(In reply to H.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84850
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84848
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-03-13 10:57 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> WORKSFORME on x86_64-apple-darwin17. A target issue?
I'm not sure how this test is supposed to work:
Breakpoint 3, 0x00010498 in main (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84845
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
First of all, I'd say it is very weird not to include the actual operation name
in the instruction name, that is the most important part.
So something like:
--- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md.jj2018-03-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84805
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I thank you for the fast fix. I can confirm that libreoffice now builds fine.
You're welcome.
> Are you considering adding the reduced test-case to our test-suite?
See the submission.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84743
--- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Tue Mar 13 16:28:09 2018
New Revision: 258495
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-13 Aaron Sawdey
PR target/84743
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84850
Bug ID: 84850
Summary: new GCC version prints warning on memcpy call (no
nontrivial bases or members)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #15)
> It should be fixed in linker.
OK - so how does the linker distinguish between a file that only contains
debug information, none of which is needed, and a fil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #14)
> Created attachment 43643 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Hi Guys.
>
> Here is a possible patch, although it is a bit hackish.
> Richard might not like it because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
Bug ID: 84849
Summary: Ambiguous resolution of braze initializer list to a
class with explicit copy/move constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That is a separate issue, not caused by the previous patch.
I have a patch for this, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84848
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-03-13 10:57 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> WORKSFORME on x86_64-apple-darwin17. A target issue?
I see it also occurs on 32-bit hppa-unknown-linux-gnu but not on 32-bit
hppa2.0w-h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 43643
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43643&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Guys.
Here is a possible patch, although it is a bit hackish.
Richard might not like it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83392
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Need GCC 8 to reproduce:
Thanks. What version of ld was this with?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84798
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 13 15:55:07 2018
New Revision: 258493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84798 - ICE with auto in abstract function declarator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84847
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Need GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83392
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
When I try to fix this using:
--- gcc/sanopt.c.jj 2018-03-02 00:15:54.670780980 +0100
+++ gcc/sanopt.c2018-03-13 16:35:38.333020680 +0100
@@ -486,12 +486,17 @@ maybe_optimize_ubsan_ptr_ifn (sanopt
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
