https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86443
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jul 10 07:12:37 2018
New Revision: 262534
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262534&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86443
* gimplify.c (find_combined_omp_for): Add DAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jul 10 07:27:37 2018
New Revision: 262535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262535&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/86421
* module.c (omp_declare_simd_clauses): Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, instead of using -k to pape over an error in the Makefile,
> what is wrong with the lines
>
> check-DEJAGNU: site.exp
> srcdir='$(srcdir)'; export srcdir; \
> EXPECT=$(EXPECT); export EXPEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86451
Bug ID: 86451
Summary: Incorrect "is used uninitialized"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86406
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86451
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try with -fno-strict-aliasing because I suspect you are violating the c/c++
aliasing rules in that you access a double as an unsigned long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86406
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jul 10 08:15:15 2018
New Revision: 262537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262537&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/86406
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_maybe_instrument_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86451
Jan Wielemaker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
Bug ID: 86452
Summary: ICE in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:25922 with -g1
and -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86406
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 9+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86407
--- Comment #4 from Zebediah Figura ---
So is there any sensible way to make this attribute a type attribute instead of
a function attribute? Or is this not desirable?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #62 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #61)
> Sorry, once again I have been totally swamped by other work. It's now
> looking like I should have some time to work on this in early July.
Ok, gre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|bootstrap
On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Well, what flags do you use? (-g1?) Any CUs with differing flags?
Yes, it's w/ -g1. I was also reproduce that on libxul.so with -g1. So that I
can confirm that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86454
Bug ID: 86454
Summary: [8/9 Regression] error: type variant differs by
TYPE_PACKED in free_lang_data since r255469
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86455
Bug ID: 86455
Summary: var-tracking mishandled pre_dec
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81685
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
Bug ID: 86453
Summary: [8/9 Regression] error: type variant differs by
TYPE_PACKED in free_lang_data since r255469
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81685
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin16 |*-apple-darwin*
Host|x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78544
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40164|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86455
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 44373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44373&action=edit
Tentative patch
Using this tentative patch, I get the correct updated insn 132:
...
(insn/f 132 4 133 2 (paralle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86456
Bug ID: 86456
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Segfault in switch_to_section at
gcc/varasm.c:7353 since r259317
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86457
Bug ID: 86457
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in add_dwarf_attr, at
dwarf2out.c:4405 since r251448
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86458
Bug ID: 86458
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: tree code ‘template_parm_index’
is not supported in LTO streams
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44374&action=edit
run verify_types unconditionally
With this patch -flto isn't needed to trigger the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86459
Bug ID: 86459
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in output_macinfo_op, at
dwarf2out.c:28095 since r260297
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #12)
> Created attachment 44343 [details]
> [debug] Add fkeep-vars-live
> Guality testing status: Og -fkeep-vars-live gives better results than Og for
> pr54200.c and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86459
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard ---
Sorry I missed that testcase starting to fail. I don't currently have it in my
tree, so I assume it was added after this commit?
svn r260297 is:
commit 35a499265a9b4b31277fc540ddfbeb63fb361649
Author: mark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86456
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86457
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86458
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't this a dup of PR83997?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83997
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 86458 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55606
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike ---
This now works with gcc 8. I haven't tried other versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
> Bisection shows that this regression was introduced by Paul's r251949 on
> 2017-09-10.
I could verify that reverting the expr.c part of that commit does not cu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55606
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> A similar test case not involving arrays:
>
> $ cat z.c && /build/gcc-trunk-svn/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-trunk-svn/gcc -S
> -Wall -Wextra -o/dev/null -xc++ z.c
> typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44375
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44375&action=edit
dump of old (correct) version
I also tried to look at the output of -fdump-tree-original for the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44376
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44376&action=edit
dump of new (buggy) version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86460
Bug ID: 86460
Summary: GCC 8.1 cross-compiler fails to compile linux kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #12 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11)
> (In reply to janus from comment #10)
...
>
> If possible, I would prefer to set the locus where it is generated,
> not conditionally later.
>
> Unfortunately, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86461
Bug ID: 86461
Summary: [9 regression] test case
gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strlen-3.c fails
starting with r262522
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:55:15AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Can you check whether removing --e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86445
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:50:28 2018
New Revision: 262540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Change dg-warning to db-bogus in a test-case (PR testsuite/86445).
2018-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reducing the test case slightly more:
program ptr_alloc
type :: t
class(*), allocatable :: val
end type
type :: list
type(t), dimension(:), pointer :: ll
end type
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86462
Bug ID: 86462
Summary: [9 Regression] Quite huge debug info size increase
introduced in r262511
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86461
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86460
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning/error message seems clear to me that this is a bug inside the Linux
kernel and should be reported to them instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
Bug ID: 86463
Summary: Slow compile with -ggdb and optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86462
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 10, 2018 5:15:08 PM GMT+02:00, "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86462
>
>Bug ID: 86462
> Summary: [9 Regression] Quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86464
Bug ID: 86464
Summary: Delegating constructor causes error if parameter has
same name as class
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> Reducing the test case slightly more:
>
>
> program ptr_alloc
>
>type :: t
> class(*), allocatable :: val
>end type
>
>type :: list
> type(t), d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> -Wignored-qualifiers has been in -Wextra since r131499. Based on the
> Firefox review I think the request is actually to remove the warning from
> -Wextra (or they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
Sylvestre Ledru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
Bug ID: 86465
Summary: C++17 triggers: ‘’ may be used
uninitialized in this function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81513
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86462
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86466
Bug ID: 86466
Summary: [X86] gcc checks the range of the immediate to
_mm_blend_ps, but not _mm_blend_epi32
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86467
Bug ID: 86467
Summary: inlining strcmp with small known length array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to coypu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> > I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe
> > they've now moved onto an EABI based ABI
On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (list
On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>
> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 06/07/18 12:11, K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
Bug ID: 86468
Summary: [9.0 regression] ICE verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86469
Bug ID: 86469
Summary: Dwarf Error: Offset (1678049557) greater than or equal
to .debug_str size (5846).
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:55:15AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470
Bug ID: 86470
Summary: ICE with OMP
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86461
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-*-* |powerpc64*-*-*, sparc*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:46:33PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> % find . -type f | xargs grep Wabi
> ...
> ./libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4: WARN_FLAGS='-Wall -Wextra -Wwrite-strings
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86469
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Perhaps G++ can check those dwarf offsets are within bounds when writing out
the object files itself when saving obj files? Could output a useful warning,
when detected as an internal compiler error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86461
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jul 10 20:21:38 2018
New Revision: 262543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/86461 - test case gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strlen-3.c f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3)
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:55:15AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
These warnings have been present for weeks - the idea that they're suddenly
preventing anybody from working on gfortran is odd. Why can't you use autoconf
or autoreconf like everybody else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86461
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66586
Michał Mirosław changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirq-gccboogs at rere dot
qmqm.pl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There was no change. r131499 was done more than a decade ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> This fixes the bootstrap failure
>
> Index: libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> ===
> --- libstdc++-v3/ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> These warnings have been present for weeks - the idea that they're suddenly
> preventing anybody from working on gfortran is odd. Why can't you use
> autoconf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:35:48PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01923.html
> and https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00059.html
>
Why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> > These warnings have been present for weeks - the idea that they're suddenly
> > preventing anybody from worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:35:48PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01923.html
> > and https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:24:57PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Why can't you use autoconf or autoreconf like everybody else?
>
Why not fix the under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because we haven't decided what the fix is.
Something like this seems better than dealing with each warning one by one
every time this happens:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclud
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
