From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 48279385702F; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:15:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 48279385702F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1594631744; bh=WqpGbhmkxFd7GM17NOIdfGpCDOq3l+WlANvH8H+drq0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oi+Gu7/ErqdK+XMWrgG21B3WsGUoiwa6YUG/TlPGSZqHuJe6KjXnztb4jSO5mAiLE rO/c5CYqQrxQSLSCnOaygPW7Q//ezbd1ZNvnHC3LVkv8jvETFzQv8bWDa0RLorixES tLzVDgoXGAVqsnxKltnAvdUebalEn5TJGAZrBMdc= From: "ian.s.mcinerney at ieee dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/96063] [10/11 Regression] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:15:44 +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: 10.1.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ian.s.mcinerney at ieee dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.2 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, 13 Jul 2020 09:15:44 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96063 --- Comment #15 from Ian McInerney --- Martin, can you backport you compiler patch to the GCC10 branch so it is fi= xed there as well? As I said, this makes the warning essentially useless to use= on large codebases with the current release.=