https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58769
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68218
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68218
Bug ID: 68218
Summary: ALLOCATE with size given by a module function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68217
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68217
Bug ID: 68217
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68216
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68216
Bug ID: 68216
Summary: [F2003] IO problem with allocatable, deferred
character length arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61588
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67625
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
There is a funny work around for this though ...
#include
struct bswapped16
{
const uint16_t val;
constexpr bswapped16 (uint16_t v) : val (__builtin_bswap16 (v)) { }
};
constexpr uint16_t bswap16 (uint16_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67625
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-11-04, at 1:57 AM, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36645&action=edit
> Here's a patch I'm testing to fix this problem
Testing...
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68215
Bug ID: 68215
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c
-std=c++11 (internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> so I give up. I am planning to submit the following patch, open a new PR
> for the bad locus, then close this PR as fixed.
The new PR won't be necessary: it is already pr63327.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63327
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr54224 comment 22 for other examples: Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote
> You will get a more precise column info (and better location for '^')
> if Fortran gives a more precise DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63331
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68214
Bug ID: 68214
Summary: gcc.dg/cwsc1.c fails on arm-none-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #4 from Marc G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195
--- Comment #4 from Evgeniy Dushistov ---
Created attachment 36650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36650&action=edit
preprocessed sources
I attached files created with gcc -E from main.cpp and Lib.cpp, hope this helps
reprod
++-common/loop-red-wv-1.c: New.
* libgomp.oacc-fortran/reduction-5.f90: Avoid reference var.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@229770
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
$/home/evgeniy/local/bin/g++ --version | head -n 1
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20151104 (experimental)
$ LANG=C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68213
Bug ID: 68213
Summary: Exception handling corrupts a VLA in MinGW
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67171
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015
New Revision: 229777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-25 Paul Thomas
Backported from trunk.
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015
New Revision: 229777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-25 Paul Thomas
Backported from trunk.
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015
New Revision: 229777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-25 Paul Thomas
Backported from trunk.
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015
New Revision: 229777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-25 Paul Thomas
Backported from trunk.
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66244
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on assigning a value to |[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66459
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Possibly related bug: PR60500
Likely, but I get the warning for this PR for 4.5.4, but not 4.4.7, while the
warnings for PR60500 appear only for 4.7.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
--- Comment #22 from Andreas Arnez ---
Here's another version of the fix:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg00368.html
It addresses an issue with the previous version that was brought up by Bernd
Schmidt: A breakpoint on the "whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #4 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 36649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36649&action=edit
Patch that preserves the typedef but does not fix the debug test failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 36648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36648&action=edit
Minimal patch for grokdeclarator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195
Evgeniy Dushistov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dushistov at mail dot ru
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
Bug ID: 68212
Summary: Loop unroller breaks basic block frequencies
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Nov 4 16:51:06 2015
New Revision: 229766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229766&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport "Handle recursive restrict in function parameter"
2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211
Bug ID: 68211
Summary: Free __m128d subreg of double
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Bug ID: 68210
Summary: nothrow operator fails to call default new
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247
--- Comment #11 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> A few comments:
>
> (1) Why do you want to use PURE in this context?
because this is a pure procedure ?
Comment 7 is not too the point (indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64973
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Correct link: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-02/msg00036.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67613
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53699
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Nov 4 14:18:43 2015
New Revision: 229755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle recursive restrict in function parameter
2015-11-04 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The patch in comment 2 looks good (works as advertised without regression, no
duplicate in store)!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209
--- Comment #2 from MikeMirzayanov ---
Right now code written as C++11 can be unintentionally compiled in C++98-mode
and it leads to incorrect behavior of the code.
What is the reason why it compiled on C++98? I expect that it is incorrect
synta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209
Bug ID: 68209
Summary: C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't
work as expected
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68175
Boris Nagaev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68089
Evgeniy Dushistov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68201
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
What about code compiled with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1, when functions like strcpy
are replaced with __builtin___strcpy_chk? This is a runtime check, so passing
pool->block_size should be reasonable there.
Inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68208
Bug ID: 68208
Summary: g++ doesn't warn against reference self-initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35031
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This is
C1252 An elemental procedure shall not have the BIND attribute.
in subclause 12.6.2.1 of my Fortran 2015 draft.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68199
astralien3000 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #21 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #13 from Andreas Schwab ---
../../gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c: In function 'void
maybe_optimize_range_tests(gimple*)':
../../gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c:3193:8: error: 'operand_entry_t' was not declared
in this scope
operand_entry_t oe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
According to the dup the fix is bogus (the added stmt is optimized away).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oremanj at mit dot edu
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68201
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
As GCC uses the attribute for static analysis it can't go out and read the
actual
value from pool->block_size so I see no value in providing the size this way
(it would also only work if pool_alloc is inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
70 matches
Mail list logo
