From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A03D0383E802; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:47:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A03D0383E802 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1592840869; bh=7n0ZwUDDR5GXhiUTk/d1IjanhAyzSHHq0cfir3jtDWY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cob7BoAk+B/1RiqSF3IathUN2gVuAib9J0jT2PiAyNqzgPR3FWPTgPseZ07xcUqd4 EQOldr1jEnMWlEopoggi1Lm5XaUt7X3V7eJd6V/hucdNcMF3PcgtFjX+4JWRO4+x0E R5JxiiGTSVeN6PYwglJfn7abdyfxW0D2VqnH08uc= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/95807] GCC accepts "void value not ignored as it ought to be" in function template Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:47:49 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:47:49 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95807 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #6) > My team nowadays are focusing on improving the quality of mature compiler= s. > We just developed a tool to test them and then found those bugs. Our meth= od > might not perfect now and it only found some issues in FE, and we are > designing a more effective approach to focus on the ME or BE parts (those > parts might more important for GCC), it still needs some time for us. So I > totally agree with that you said, and maybe later reports will be more > useful for you. OK, thanks for the background information.=