http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Henlich
2011-06-20 07:15:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> This is kind of bad:
>
> print "(RU,F7.0)", 7500.0 ! 8. expected 7500.
> print "(RD,F7.0)", -7500.0 ! -8. expected -7500.
I've traced the bug down to th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
Summary: ICE when -ftree-parallelize-loops is enabled together
with -m32 on power7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-06-20 09:22:31 UTC ---
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
>
> --- Comment #29 from davidxl 2011-06-18
> 09:05:10 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49467
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noloader at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49470
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-20
10:06:13 UTC ---
If you instantiate the template you get an error.
There are LOTS of things clang diagnoses in uninstantiated templates that g++
doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49465
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-20
10:22:52 UTC ---
Why is
D.7313_5 = MEM[(struct *).paral_data_param_1(D)].D.7288; /* Number of loop
iterations. */
of type __int128? That looks bogus.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49463
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49460
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49446
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
--- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-06-20
10:50:27 UTC ---
*** Bug 49446 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49464
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
ins
--prefix=/afs/mpa/data/martin/ugcc --with-libelf=/afs/mpa/data/martin/numlibs64
--enable-languages=c++,fortran --enable-target=all --enable-checking=release
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110620 (experimental) [trunk revision 175202] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-g'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-06-20
11:14:54 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jun 20 11:14:50 2011
New Revision: 175205
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175205
Log:
2011-06-20 Ramana Radhakrishnan
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38738
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49473
Summary: [arm] poor scheduling of loads
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49473
--- Comment #1 from philb at gnu dot org 2011-06-20 11:43:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 24564
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24564
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38738
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43603
--- Comment #25 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-06-20
11:56:11 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Mon Jun 20 11:56:08 2011
New Revision: 175207
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175207
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |rtl-optimization
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43603
--- Comment #26 from devurandom at gmx dot net 2011-06-20 12:09:26 UTC ---
Thanks a lot!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-06-20
12:16:04 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jun 20 12:15:58 2011
New Revision: 175208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175208
Log:
Fix PR target/49385
2011-06-20 Ramana Ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
--- Comment #2 from razya at il dot ibm.com 2011-06-20 12:31:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why is
> D.7313_5 = MEM[(struct *).paral_data_param_1(D)].D.7288; /* Number of loop
> iterations. */
> of type __int128? That looks bogus.
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49460
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-20
12:53:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 24565
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24565
autoreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-20
12:55:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Why is
> > D.7313_5 = MEM[(struct *).paral_data_param_1(D)].D.7288; /* Number of
> > loop
> > iterations. */
> > of typ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48016
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-20
13:58:03 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jun 20 13:57:59 2011
New Revision: 175210
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175210
Log:
Use proper mode for stack save area.
2011-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
--- Comment #4 from razya at il dot ibm.com 2011-06-20 14:14:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > Why is
> > > D.7313_5 = MEM[(struct *).paral_data_param_1(D)].D.7288; /* Number of
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-20
14:17:51 UTC ---
The test in comment #3 compiles if I replace (1._dl+aq*aq)**1.5d0 with
sqrt((1._dl+aq*aq)**3).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-20 14:30:11 UTC ---
> Does http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01375.html have any impact
> on
> this bug?
No, as I said, the md5test and shatest executables are correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49296
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.1 |4.6.2
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43831
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:39:48 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:39:44 2011
New Revision: 175211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175211
Log:
PR c++/43831
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43321
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:39:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:39:53 2011
New Revision: 175212
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175212
Log:
PR c++/43321
* semantics.c (describable_typ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49205
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:40:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:40:10 2011
New Revision: 175214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175214
Log:
PR c++/49205
* call.c (sufficient_parms_p):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37089
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:40:05 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:40:01 2011
New Revision: 175213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175213
Log:
PR c++/37089
* cp-demangle.c (d_print_comp)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48138
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:40:27 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:40:19 2011
New Revision: 175215
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175215
Log:
PR c++/48138
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47080
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:40:43 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:40:38 2011
New Revision: 175217
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175217
Log:
PR c++/47080
* call.c (rejection_reason_cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47080
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49205
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47635
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-20
14:40:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:40:29 2011
New Revision: 175216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175216
Log:
PR c++/47635
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Don
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-20 14:42:12 UTC ---
As a further datapoint, I've configured mainline with gas 2.21, but with
HAVE_GAS_WEAKREF removed from auto-host.h. (Setting the autoconf
configure variable to no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49260
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-20 14:51:07 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-06
> 11:18:43 UTC ---
>> I'm seeing this when using Sun as on Solaris, but not with GNU as 2.21, even
>> when Sun ld i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43321
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-20
14:53:52 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jun 20 14:53:48 2011
New Revision: 175218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175218
Log:
Check zero/sign extended hard registers.
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43831
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47635
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-20
15:16:59 UTC ---
Gimple out of the middle end looks fine. From 142t.optimized:
;; Function nu_derivs (__massivenu_MOD_nu_derivs, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=708,
cgraph_uid=0)
nu_derivs ()
{
real(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-20
15:18:55 UTC ---
Sorry, paste error. That was the wrong gimple dump. HERE is 142.optimized:
;; Function nu_derivs (__massivenu_MOD_nu_derivs, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=708,
cgraph_uid=0)
nu_deriv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-20
15:27:06 UTC ---
> I think these two are totally independent of each other -- one should not be
> gated against each other. If Eawaran's approach is completely flawed, that is
> different story. With
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49474
Summary: GCC 4.7-20110618 fails to bootstrap on stage 2:
gcc/fortran/resolve.c:5360:1: internal compiler error:
vector VEC(edge,base) index domain error, in
find_implicit_sets a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49260
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-20
15:55:38 UTC ---
> The output of the FDE initial location happens in dwarf2out.c
> (output_call_frame_info). If I step throught that function, I see that
> the FDEs are only emitted if fde_needed_for_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49205
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Schaub
2011-06-20 15:56:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > While this behavior is erroneous, consensus at clang was that WG21 made an
> > oversight in allowing this. Template constructo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-20
16:01:53 UTC ---
> Check zero/sign extended hard registers.
>
> 2011-06-20 H.J. Lu
>
> PR middle-end/47725
> * combine.c (cant_combine_insn_p): Check zero/sign extended
> hard registe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49391
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #34 from davidxl 2011-06-20 16:25:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> > I think these two are totally independent of each other -- one should not be
> > gated against each other. If Eawaran's approach is completely flawed, that
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49475
Summary: [OOP] Add DWARF info for Fortran's OOP features
(extension, member functions)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42980
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #35 from Easwaran Raman 2011-06-20
16:51:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> > I think these two are totally independent of each other -- one should not be
> > gated against each other. If Eawaran's approach is completely flawed, t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #18 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-20
17:03:21 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jun 20 17:03:16 2011
New Revision: 175222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175222
Log:
Don't check zero/sign extended hard registe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49465
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-06-20 17:05:56
UTC ---
Something goofy happens when we compile loop.c in cpu2k6... Still
investigating.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49443
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-20 17:12:41
UTC ---
Yes, the patch in comment #2 fixes the failures on IA64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49476
Summary: Complex functions returning references (not following
C++ standard)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49476
--- Comment #1 from Basil 2011-06-20
17:22:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 24567
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24567
Reproducer program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49476
--- Comment #2 from Basil 2011-06-20
17:22:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 24568
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24568
Patch to fix issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49477
Summary: Should have user/debugger-oriented fine-tuning of
optimizations available
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49476
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-20
17:56:24 UTC ---
Changed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-01/msg00091.html
c.f.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#387
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/pap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49476
--- Comment #4 from Basil 2011-06-20
18:10:39 UTC ---
The change doesn't fix the issue, as it is a solution for when -std=c++0x is
specified.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Changed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-01/msg00091.html
> c.f.
> ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49476
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #11 from Easwaran Raman 2011-06-20
18:40:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> With regards to the question in comment #9, you would probably do better
> asking
> it on the gcc-patches mailing list then in the comment of this bug re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46350
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-06-20
18:57:16 UTC ---
Still present in 4.6.1:
/xxx/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/xxx/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6/hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20/bin/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6/hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20/li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49422
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-06-20
18:58:00 UTC ---
I've not been able to reproduce this ICE. How exactly was your gcc configured
(arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49478
Summary: ice in expand_widen_pattern_expr with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49479
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] reshape / optionals / zero sized
arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49479
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-06-20 20:04:47 UTC ---
the difference (I think) seems to be in the present check that has become
if (data != 0B && (integer(kind=4)[0:] * restrict) data->data != 0B)
instead of the original
if (data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49479
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-06-20 21:11:54 UTC ---
The patch in comment #11 fixes the failures in comment #0. Thanks. Full testing
will take ~20 hours.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #58 from Tobias Burnus 2011-06-20
21:12:42 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 20 21:12:39 2011
New Revision: 175228
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175228
Log:
2011-06-20 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #13 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-20 21:18:18
UTC ---
Yes, it fixed the test case on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. I will put it in my nightly
bootstrap and test setup and let you know the results of that tomorrow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49479
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49480
Summary: internal compiler error: output_operand: invalid
expression as operand
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49465
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-06-20 22:51:17
UTC ---
Fix looking good. Doing a cpu2k6 int test right now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32986
--- Comment #2 from afhoffie at ncsu dot edu 2011-06-20 23:02:09 UTC ---
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am trying to define an array index variable but also an allocatable array
in my fortran subroutine as a common object. This object is defined as a
global
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49478
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
