public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/105491] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2022-05-05 11:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:38 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The constexpr rules in C++11 are much stricter, this is probably user error
(i.e. C++20 constinit can't be used here).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2022-05-05 11:55 ` [Bug c++/105491] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-05 14:38 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:48 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reduced. Works with -std=c++17 but not 14. It's about the union in
ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal.
class Message {
virtual int GetMetadata();
};
class ProtobufCFileOptions : Message {
public:
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptions(int);
bool no_generate_;
bool const_strings_;
bool use_oneof_field_name_;
bool gen_pack_helpers_;
bool gen_init_helpers_;
};
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptions::ProtobufCFileOptions(int)
: no_generate_(), const_strings_(), use_oneof_field_name_(),
gen_pack_helpers_(), gen_init_helpers_() {}
struct ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal {
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal() : _instance({}) {}
union {
ProtobufCFileOptions _instance;
};
} __constinit _ProtobufCFileOptions_default_instance_;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2022-05-05 11:55 ` [Bug c++/105491] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:38 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-05 14:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:51 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2022-05-05
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Summary|Usage of __constinit with |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
|-std=c++11 does is rejected |Usage of __constinit with
| |-std=c++11 does is rejected
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Related
class Message {
virtual int GetMetadata();
};
class ProtobufCFileOptions : Message {
public:
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptions(int);
bool no_generate_;
bool const_strings_;
bool use_oneof_field_name_;
bool gen_pack_helpers_;
bool gen_init_helpers_;
};
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptions::ProtobufCFileOptions(int)
: no_generate_(), const_strings_(), use_oneof_field_name_(),
gen_pack_helpers_(), gen_init_helpers_() {}
struct ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal {
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal() : _instance({}) {}
union {
ProtobufCFileOptions _instance;
};
};
constexpr ProtobufCFileOptionsDefaultTypeInternal
_ProtobufCFileOptions_default_instance_;
is rejected starting with r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e180d350b71e51e08a66a1bb1546a
when using -std=c++11 or -std=c++14.
Though, I don't see how it could be changing the active union member when there
is just one member...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-05 14:48 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-05 14:51 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:57 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think this is a genuine bug that started with r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e18.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-05 14:51 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-05 14:57 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:58 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
// PR c++/105491
struct V {
virtual int foo();
};
struct S : V {
constexpr S(int) : b() { }
bool b;
};
struct W {
constexpr W() : s({}) {}
union {
S s;
};
};
constexpr W w;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-05 14:57 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-05 14:58 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 15:01 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |rejects-valid
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-05 14:58 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-05 15:01 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06 13:47 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-05 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And since it only happens with a polymorphic class, my bet is that we think
there are two members because one is the artificial vtable for S and the other
is the bool. I can poke more.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-05 15:01 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-06 13:47 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-09 13:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-06 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This seems to fix it:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -1886,7 +1886,8 @@ cxx_eval_internal_function (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t,
static void
clear_no_implicit_zero (tree ctor)
{
- if (CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING (ctor))
+ if (CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING (ctor)
+ || TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (ctor)) == UNION_TYPE)
{
CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING (ctor) = false;
for (auto &e: CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (ctor))
When recursively clearing CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING, it could be the case that a
union's initializer has CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING already cleared but its
sub-aggregates don't, because for unions CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING is overloaded
to also track whether we're in the process of initializing a union member.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-06 13:47 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-09 13:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-16 8:46 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12 " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-09 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka <ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c7bce0ac184c057bacad9c8e615ce82923835fd
commit r13-211-g0c7bce0ac184c057bacad9c8e615ce82923835fd
Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Date: Mon May 9 09:53:27 2022 -0400
c++: constexpr init of union sub-aggr w/ base [PR105491]
Here ever since r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e18, reduced_constant_expression_p
in C++11/14 is rejecting the marked sub-aggregate initializer (of type S)
W w = {.D.2445={.s={.D.2387={.m=0}, .b=0}}};
^
ultimately because said initializer has CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING set,
hence the function must verify that all fields of S are initialized.
And before C++17 it doesn't expect to see base class fields (since
next_initializable_field skips over them), so the presence thereof
causes r_c_e_p to return false.
The reason r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e18 causes this is because in that
commit we began using CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING to precisely track whether
we're in middle of activating a union member. This ends up affecting
clear_no_implicit_zero, which recurses into sub-aggregate initializers
only if the outer initializer has CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING set. After
that commit, the outer union initializer above no longer has the flag
set at this point and so clear_no_implicit_zero no longer recurses into
the marked inner initializer.
But arguably r_c_e_p should be able to accept the marked initializer
regardless of whether CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING is set. The primary bug
therefore seems to be that r_c_e_p relies on next_initializable_field
which skips over base class fields in C++11/14. To fix this, this patch
introduces a new helper function next_subobject_field which is like
next_initializable_field except that it never skips base class fields,
and makes r_c_e_p use it. This patch then renames next_initializable_field
to next_aggregate_field (and makes it skip over vptr fields again).
PR c++/105491
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* call.cc (field_in_pset): Adjust after next_initializable_field
renaming.
(build_aggr_conv): Likewise.
(convert_like_internal): Likewise.
(type_has_extended_temps): Likewise.
* class.cc (default_init_uninitialized_part): Likewise.
(finish_struct): Likewise.
* constexpr.cc (cx_check_missing_mem_inits): Likewise.
(reduced_constant_expression_p): Use next_subobject_field
instead.
* cp-gimplify.cc (get_source_location_impl_type): Adjust after
next_initializable_field renaming.
(fold_builtin_source_location): Likewise.
* cp-tree.h (next_initializable_field): Rename to ...
(next_aggregate_field): ... this.
(next_subobject_field): Declare.
* decl.cc (next_aggregate_field): Renamed from ...
(next_initializable_field): ... this. Skip over vptr fields
again.
(next_subobject_field): Define.
(reshape_init_class): Adjust after next_initializable_field
renaming.
* init.cc (build_value_init_noctor): Likewise.
(emit_mem_initializers): Likewise.
* lambda.cc (build_capture_proxy): Likewise.
* method.cc (build_comparison_op): Likewise.
* pt.cc (maybe_aggr_guide): Likewise.
* tree.cc (structural_type_p): Likewise.
* typeck2.cc (split_nonconstant_init_1): Likewise.
(digest_init_r): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-union7.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-union7a.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/constinit17.C: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-09 13:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-16 8:46 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-01 12:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-16 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression] |[10/11/12 Regression] Usage
|Usage of __constinit with |of __constinit with
|-std=c++11 does is rejected |-std=c++11 does is rejected
Known to work| |13.0
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on master.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-16 8:46 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12 " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-01 12:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-01 12:53 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-01 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
<ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e30b73bad9486f11b6b0022ae4a3edfc0f9da4bb
commit r12-8445-ge30b73bad9486f11b6b0022ae4a3edfc0f9da4bb
Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jun 1 08:47:25 2022 -0400
c++: constexpr init of union sub-aggr w/ base [PR105491]
Here ever since r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e18, reduced_constant_expression_p
in C++11/14 is rejecting the marked sub-aggregate initializer (of type S)
W w = {.D.2445={.s={.D.2387={.m=0}, .b=0}}};
^
ultimately because said initializer has CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING set,
hence the function must verify that all fields of S are initialized.
And before C++17 it doesn't expect to see base class fields (since
next_initializable_field skips over them), so the presence thereof
causes r_c_e_p to return false.
The reason r10-7313-gb599bf9d6d1e18 causes this is because in that
commit we began using CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING to precisely track whether
we're in middle of activating a union member. This ends up affecting
clear_no_implicit_zero, which recurses into sub-aggregate initializers
only if the outer initializer has CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING set. After
that commit, the outer union initializer above no longer has the flag
set at this point and so clear_no_implicit_zero no longer recurses into
the marked inner initializer.
But arguably r_c_e_p should be able to accept the marked initializer
regardless of whether CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING is set. The primary bug
therefore seems to be that r_c_e_p relies on next_initializable_field
which skips over base class fields in C++11/14. To fix this, this patch
introduces a new helper function next_subobject_field which is like
next_initializable_field except that it never skips base class fields,
and makes r_c_e_p use it. This patch then renames next_initializable_field
to next_aggregate_field (and makes it skip over vptr fields again).
NB: This minimal backport of r13-211-g0c7bce0ac184c0 for 12.2 just adds
next_subobject_field and makes reduced_constant_expression_p use it.
PR c++/105491
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (reduced_constant_expression_p): Use
next_subobject_field instead.
* cp-tree.h (next_subobject_field): Declare.
* decl.cc (next_subobject_field): Define.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-union7.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-union7a.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/constinit17.C: New test.
(cherry picked from commit 0c7bce0ac184c057bacad9c8e615ce82923835fd)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-01 12:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-01 12:53 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-21 15:05 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-01 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] Usage |[10/11 Regression] Usage of
|of __constinit with |__constinit with -std=c++11
|-std=c++11 does is rejected |does is rejected
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Now fixed for 12.2 as well.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-01 12:53 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-28 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-21 15:05 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/105491] [10/11 Regression] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-28 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-21 15:05 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-21 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105491
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.5 |12.2
Known to fail| |10.4.0, 11.3.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 12.2+. The patch unfortunately doesn't apply cleanly to older
release branches, and would be non-trivial to adapt.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-21 15:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-105491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2022-05-05 11:55 ` [Bug c++/105491] Usage of __constinit with -std=c++11 does is rejected redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:38 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:48 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12/13 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:51 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:57 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 14:58 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05 15:01 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06 13:47 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-09 13:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-16 8:46 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11/12 " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-01 12:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-01 12:53 ` [Bug c++/105491] [10/11 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-21 15:05 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).