https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97683
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm pretty sure this is a gas bug. I used git bisect to track it down to
binutils commit ae9d2233e61a98ff8dba56be10219aa5306ffc9a which caused gcc to
start passing --gdwarf-5 on the gas command li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99250
Bug ID: 99250
Summary: [F2018] coshape intrinsic is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93308
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, there are two flavors of failures being diagnosed by the test case.
The first flavor involves the lower bounds of an array passed into a bind(c)
procedure being set to zero in the callee when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93963
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94289
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now applied to GCC 11 too. The other two patches referenced in this issue were
put on mainline before GCC 11 branched and not on GCC 10 or any older branch,
so I think I'm done here and the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's a related problem: the GFC descriptor representation can't distinguish
between
CHARACTER(kind=ucs4, len=1)
and
CHARACTER(kind=c_char, len=4)
because all it has is elem_len == 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108399
Bug ID: 108399
Summary: wrong locations generated for OMP_FOR
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94920
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
Bug ID: 106449
Summary: ICE in #pragma omp parallel for simd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106492
Bug ID: 106492
Summary: ICE in #pragma omp for simd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106548
Bug ID: 106548
Summary: ICE in #pragma openmp parallel for simd linear with
long long variables
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I thought I had a fix for this that involved making gfc_is_simply_contiguous
smarter about intrinsics and other function calls, but after writing more test
cases I found that this one still ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 52107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52107&action=edit
-fdump-tree-original output from second test case
Well, this is nuts. Unmodified code is generatin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-January/057249.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
--- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Without a test case, I can't tell if the error in comment 7 was due to this bug
or a different one. It doesn't really look the same as the other failures I
looked at in this issue, as the source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103898
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is probably related to my rewrite of the size/shape/ubound/lbound
intrinsics back in mid-November. I can add this one to my queue, but I've
already got 3 or 4 other issues already waiting fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The previous hacky patch had some testsuite regressions. I've posted a less
hacky one that doesn't trigger new failures here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/587632.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95879
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103366
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The proposed patch looks reasonable to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102708
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103898
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103898
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-January/057293.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103287
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103898
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that the wrong-scope problem is introduced in gfc_finish_var_decl,
in this block of code:
/* Chain this decl to the pending declarations. Don't do pushdecl()
because this would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ooops, I meant AFFINITY clause in the message above, not ASSOCIATED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103163
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104100
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102621
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 102621 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101337
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89078
Bug 89078 depends on bug 35276, which changed state.
Bug 35276 Summary: Doc should described how to compile mixed-language programs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35930
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89078
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I did look over the entire list of still-open issues and did not see any
further low-hanging fruit. It also seemed to me that some of the issues on the
list are cases where it appears the implemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101337
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103163
Bug ID: 103163
Summary: stack_limit_rtx is created too early
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101674
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91288
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This looks like an existing bug in error checking that was exposed by my patch
to do... more error checking. :-S
The problem is that gfc_set_default_type in symbol.c is setting
sym->attr.untype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 51980
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51980&action=edit
hacky patch
Attached patch has not been regression tested, but it does seem to fix the
original tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103287
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 51994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51994&action=edit
-fdump-tree-original output from test case
Here's the full output from -fdump-tree-original for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is a workaround for this included in commit
93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7
that doesn't fully solve the problem: when "long double" and "float128" are
different types with the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102282
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102353
Bug ID: 102353
Summary: powerpc64le-linux-gnu build failure when build != host
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102353
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ooops, I meant x86_64-linux-gnu build, not host. :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102353
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think rs6000-gen-builtins is supposed to be a build binary, not a host
binary? I'm seeing this at the end of my build log with that patch.
./rs6000-gen-builtins /path/to/gcc/config/rs6000/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77652
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102641
Bug ID: 102641
Summary: Bogus error for intent(out) dummy that is a
polymorphic assumed-rank array
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54753
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch to add the diagnostic posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-October/056656.html
There's still a problem with the bogus diagnostic arising from
deallocation/initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102641
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was thinking that for assumed-rank the front end should probably just emit a
call to a library support function in the callee, instead of whatever it is
doing now to try to deallocate/initialize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #11 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are still some bugs present with class arrays. E.g., this test case
ICEs:
module m
type :: t
integer :: id
real :: xyz(3)
end type
contains
subroutine testit2p(a)
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94022
Bug 94022 depends on bug 94070, which changed state.
Bug 94070 Summary: Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled,
SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #21 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias, did your big patch fully fix this issue so that we can close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101304
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101319
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101320
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101333
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54753
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101334
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101337
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is likely a "won't fix" bug, but I'll leave it open for now. The test
cases (now committed) are still XFAILed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100907
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100916
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100911
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100915
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100906
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94289
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99922
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||everythingfunctional@proton
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95196
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84007
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.
Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.
Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102729
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
