https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68433
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68433
Bug ID: 68433
Summary: Wrong code with INTERFACE, INTRINSIC, and optional
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68393
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:17:21 2015
New Revision: 230590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 68393: Handle SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR_P in expand_direct_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60736
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:27:12 2015
New Revision: 230591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/60736
* include/cpplib.h (cpp_errno_filen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60736
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:28:43 2015
New Revision: 230592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/60736
* include/cpplib.h (cpp_errno_filen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67770
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:30:19 2015
New Revision: 230593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67770
* config/i386/i386.md (simple_return): Dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68383
--- Comment #8 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Would it be helpful it I tried to create a test case for 5.2.0? Or anything
else I can provide?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66707
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67770
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:47:24 2015
New Revision: 230595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67770
* config/i386/i386.md (simple_return): Dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #39 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:47:16 2015
New Revision: 230594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-19 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/68117
* tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68376
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:49:59 2015
New Revision: 230596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/68376
* ifcvt.c (noce_try_abs): Disabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68376
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:53:52 2015
New Revision: 230597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/68376
* ifcvt.c (noce_try_abs): Disabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68383
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68341
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FTR, related comment at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01792.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Bonzini ---
If you really want to fix it, (-(1 << 19)) is the best.
The real fix would be to lobby the C/C++ committees so that left shift of a
negative value is unspecified behavior rather than undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68198
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> Should be fixed on the trunk now. I went from some absurd time down to less
> than a second for the critical code in 453.povray.
Yep, I can conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68279
Jana Saout changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jana at saout dot de
--- Comment #3 from Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68427
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68237
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> I'll take a look at Steve's proposed patch tonight. In the meantime, I have
> taken the PR.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
Steve's patch is good... obvious, even :-)
Here i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68243
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Confirmed.
Isn't this testcase a demonstration that unused3 and unused4 can be used
outside of m2?
module m1
implicit none
private
interface
modu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68430
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard isn't clear about what should happen here, there will be an issue
opened about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68427
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
In extract_range_from_binary_expr_1 we have
/* When vr0.max < 0, vr1.min != 0 and value
ranges for dividend and divisor are available. */
if (vr1.type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 36770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36770&action=edit
Fix for the PR
The attached patch fixes the problem but is, as yet, not regtested.
Cheers
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68393
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Just to check: is this x86_64-linux-gnu?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68427
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 19 11:49:32 2015
New Revision: 230598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68408
* config/sparc/sp-elf.h (CTORS_SECTION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 19 11:50:35 2015
New Revision: 230599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68408
* config/sparc/sp-elf.h (CTORS_SECTION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 19 11:51:20 2015
New Revision: 230600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68408
* config/sparc/sp-elf.h (CTORS_SECTION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
Alan Hayward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alan.hayward at arm dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
r230309 refers to a vectorization of a comparison of boolean values. It
shouldn't affect condition vectorizaion. Thus most probably check and build
stages of vectorizable_condition are still inconsistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
BTW I had an impression it was vectorizable_reduction which failed to
transform, not vectorizable_condition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
--- Comment #5 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, your right, I meant to say vectorizable_reduction - it's a reduction of a
condition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67954
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67954
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 36771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36771&action=edit
reduced testcase
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 19 13:31:33 2015
New Revision: 230603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/61313
* configure.ac (PLUGIN_LD_SUFFIX): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 19 13:32:10 2015
New Revision: 230604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/61313
* configure.ac (PLUGIN_LD_SUFFIX): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 19 13:32:54 2015
New Revision: 230605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/61313
* configure.ac (PLUGIN_LD_SUFFIX): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #4)
> > In the original post I suggested that I already looked at the code,
>
> What changes did you try?
Baby
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68434
Bug ID: 68434
Summary: [concepts] ICE same canonical type node for different
types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68427
--- Comment #3 from wam at hiwaay dot net ---
comment 1: How do I go about doing that (posting preprocessed source file) ?
The tarball I uploaded just has 2 text files showing the output of my effort to
compile the code, & the code in its own tarb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68393
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Richard!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #4)
> > > In the original post I suggested that I already looked a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #4)
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
--- Comment #7 from Sergey Organov ---
Eric, thank you very much for the quick fix!
I confirm it is fixed on sparc-elf-g++ (GCC) 5.2.1 20151119.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68435
Bug ID: 68435
Summary: [6 Regression] Missed if-conversion optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57845
--- Comment #16 from Sergey Organov ---
I confirm it is fixed on sparc-elf-gcc (GCC) 5.2.1 20151119.
Thanks one more time!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68435
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Nov 19 15:12:35 2015
New Revision: 230608
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230608&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68431
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, thank you very much for the quick fix!
You're welcome.
> I confirm it is fixed on sparc-elf-g++ (GCC) 5.2.1 20151119.
Thanks, independent verification is always helpful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
--- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich ---
I checked what is happening and seems the reason is in different
STMT_VINFO_VEC_REDUCTION_TYPE (stmt_info) on analysis and transform phases.
During analysis it is INTEGER_INDUC_COND_REDUCTION, for transforma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68436
Bug ID: 68436
Summary: [5 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Looking deeper the difference is caused by different result of
is_nonwrapping_integer_induction called for reduction related phi statement.
For the first call it is:
i_12 = PHI
For the second call it is
converted.
2 true changes made.
but file t21.c.209r.ce1 produced by 20151119 compiler does not
1 possible IF blocks searched.
0 IF blocks converted.
0 true changes made.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68435
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Fomin ---
This can be reproduced both for i686-*-* and x86_64-*-* hosts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68435
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68435
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 36774
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36774&action=edit
tar file
tar file contains good and bad ce1-rtl dumps showing the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68437
Bug ID: 68437
Summary: [concepts] fold expression, pack expansion, and
deduced constraint requirement
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 16:18:39 2015
New Revision: 230613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67409
* decl.c (identify_goto): Add LOC and DIAG_KI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68392
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67868
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Ramana! I've verified that this is working ok for Power as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68413
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 19 16:34:32 2015
New Revision: 230616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67409
* decl.c (identify_goto): Add LOC and DIAG_K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68409
--- Comment #1 from f3rn4nd0.c354r ---
I forget to specify the compilation options used:
-std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] wrong |[4.9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67770
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] i386: |[4.9 Regression] i386:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60736
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] Crash |[4.9 Regression] Crash in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #20 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch seems to have the desired effect on the original testcase:
...
diff --git a/gcc/omp-low.c b/gcc/omp-low.c
index 830db75..996756b 100644
--- a/gcc/omp-low.c
+++ b/gcc/omp-low.c
@@ -9361,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68392
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vries from comment #20)
> This patch seems to have the desired effect on the original testcase:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/omp-low.c b/gcc/omp-low.c
> index 830db75..996756b 100644
> --- a/gcc/om
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68438
Bug ID: 68438
Summary: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on
uninitialised value in location_adhoc_data_eq
(line-map.c:89)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68421
--- Comment #2 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, looking at the dump files, at the end of tree form we have copies from the
register globals and uses of the copies only:
:
execute_data.0_4 = execute_data;
opline.1_5 = opline;
_6 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67089
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68439
Bug ID: 68439
Summary: ICE in
alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_subcomponent_assignment,
at fortran/trans-expr.c:6711
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68440
Bug ID: 68440
Summary: ICE on declaring class variable with wrong attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68440
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Some variants :
$ cat z4.f90
subroutine s
type t
end type
class(t), parameter :: x = t()
end
$ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all z4.f90
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68440
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Detected :
$ cat z7.f90
subroutine s
type t
end type
class(t), allocatable :: x = t()
end
$ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all z7.f90
z7.f90:4:29:
class(t), allocatable :: x = t()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
Bug ID: 68441
Summary: ICE on using transfer with character parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68442
Bug ID: 68442
Summary: ICE on kind specification, depending on ordering of
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68442
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Detected with reversed order :
$ cat z2.f90
module m
interface gkind
procedure g
end interface
contains
integer function g()
g = 1
end
subroutine f(x)
character(kind=gk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68427
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to wam from comment #3)
> comment 1: How do I go about doing that (posting preprocessed source file) ?
It's explained at the link you should have read before creating a bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68443
Bug ID: 68443
Summary: [ada] FAIL: c39006b
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee: unassig
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
