https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78583
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78588
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78592
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78588
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Nov 30 07:30:55 2016
New Revision: 242997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR78588 - rtlanal.c:5210:38: runtime error: shift exponent 42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 30 07:25:36 2016
New Revision: 242996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/78573
* dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78607
Bug ID: 78607
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
missing barrier after block 2)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> Please file a separate bug.
I've filed PR78607.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-11/msg03338.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from DJ Delorie --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
Hmm. Maybe it is file-system-specific. I don't see the anomalous return
values on XFS and tmpfs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64-elf
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
--- Comment #4 from DJ Delorie ---
kernel-4.8.6-201.fc24.x86_64
glibc-2.23.1-11.fc24.x86_64
but I'm also working on a libiberty patch to detect the case and avoid it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
FYI I'm using the gdb simulator to run the testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78599
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Markus,
Thanks for the report, I am able to reproduce it with ubsan-built gcc
(--with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
I am looking into it.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||TREE
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
Correction:
> Regardless, I will be looking at pr78351 (which is a result of doing some
> speedups for internal units) and I will be thinking more about this PR her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to mecej4 from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5)
> >
> > Can you explain what "Windows Subsystem for Linux (Ubuntu 14) on Windows-10"
> > is?
>
> Sorry if I created a bad p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #6 from mecej4 at operamail dot com ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5)
>
> Can you explain what "Windows Subsystem for Linux (Ubuntu 14) on Windows-10"
> is?
Sorry if I created a bad portmanteau phrase.
Here is a link
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78606
Bug ID: 78606
Summary: -Wformat-length/-fprintf-return-value incorrect for
%+.0i and %.0o with zero value
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78569
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78569
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Nov 30 01:13:37 2016
New Revision: 242990
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242990&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
substring locations and # line directives (PR preprocessor/78569)
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78605
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> As an independent issue, since the type of the arguments to the %f directive
> is
> float (not double), the checker should use -FLT_M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70905
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Using gdb, I see:
>
> (gdb) info registers f1 f2
> f1 27 (raw 0x403b)
> f2 -3.08148791101
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78597
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If these fail but weren't previously run then it's not a regression, but
an indication of a wrong-code bug in the float128 support for powerpc (for
which testing was previously very limited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78532
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, m.ostapenko at samsung dot com wrote:
> /home/max/src/glibc/resolv/ns_print.c:99: undefined reference to
> `__stack_chk_guard'
You get this if glibc and GCC have mismat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78594
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Fixed in subversion id 242983.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78594
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78594
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Nov 30 00:05:46 2016
New Revision: 242983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-29 Michael Meissner
PR target/78594
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78532
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
using the glibc build from Debian unstable, build logs at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=glibc
see https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=glibc&arch=sparc64
for the last successful bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> There are still various weird spots in format_integer.
> E.g.
> else if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (arg)) == INTEGER_TYPE
>|| TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (arg))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78560
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40194|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78426
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Fixed on 5/6 branches too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78426
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Nov 29 23:23:30 2016
New Revision: 242982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-11-19 Kaz Kojima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78426
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Nov 29 23:20:28 2016
New Revision: 242981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-11-19 Kaz Kojima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #13 from Breno Leitao ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> Breno, what is your environment? Which glibc is present?
We found this problem originally on Debian[1], but we tested and reproduced it
even on Big Endian distr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78590
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78560
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Unfortunately once you get past the problem with the element being a memory
location, the example does not compile on little endian due to an operand out
of error message from the assembler:
-> ./xgcc -B.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78602
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40195&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78560
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40194&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78560
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78605
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78605
Bug ID: 78605
Summary: bogus -Wformat-length=1 with %f
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77517
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78603
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78603
--- Comment #3 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jcmvbkbc
Date: Tue Nov 29 22:22:13 2016
New Revision: 242979
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
xtensa: Fix PR target/78603
2016-11-29 Max Filippov
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, I was incorrect about that. If I use -O0, the test produces 26 in my
environment as well. At higher optimization the whole computation is folded.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78601
--- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
That patch indeed seems to fix these problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Breno, what is your environment? Which glibc is present?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, that accounts for it. That would be a glibc problem.
Building this code with GCC trunk on Ubuntu 14.04 with glibc 2.19, the program
produces 27 as expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78603
--- Comment #2 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Similar bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48214
And looks like the same problem here: first instruction of zero overhead loop
got inserted between the call and its NOTE_INSN_CALL_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78603
--- Comment #1 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40193&action=edit
additional patch on top of gcc-5.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78604
Bug ID: 78604
Summary: [7 regression] test case
gcc.target/powerpc/p8vector-vectorize-1.c fails
starting with r242750
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status
fPIC
-I/home/jcmvbkbc/ws/tensilica/buildroot/build-20161129-reproduce-libpjsip/host/usr/xtensa-buildroot-linux-uclibc/sysroot/usr/include
-I../include -o output/pjlib-test-xtensa-buildroot-linux-uclibc/thread.o
../src/pjlib-test/thread.c
../src/pjlib-test/thread.c: In function 'thread_test&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78498
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02937.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78602
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64{,le}-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78602
Bug ID: 78602
Summary: PowerPC vec-extract-v2df.c can fail if -mcpu=power9
-O0
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> Draft patch:
Unfortunately this causes several regressions in the testsuite:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/asynchronous_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line 35)
FAIL: gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78569
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.black at au dot ibm.com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78169
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78169
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (revision 242960)
+++ gcc/fortran/decl.c (working copy)
@@ -5962
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78512
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 29 21:08:02 2016
New Revision: 242975
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242975&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78512 - [7 Regression] r242674 miscompiles Linux kern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78601
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Without verifying, this looks like a duplicate of pr78566.
Can you try with the latest trunk plus the patch I've posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02900.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78601
Bug ID: 78601
Summary: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/uninit-pred-6_a.c and
gcc.dg/uninit-pred-7_c.c fail starting with r242639
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78600
cpbezemer at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78600
Bug ID: 78600
Summary: gcc reads c++ object file during build for no apparent
reason
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please file a separate bug. PR77346 is unrelated, let's not mix matters.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78599
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 ~ % cat bench.ii
struct A {
enum { __value };
};
template _OI __copy_move_a2(_II, _OI);
template void copy(_II, _II, _OI p3) {
__copy_move_a2(0, p3);
}
struct B {
template using __ite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> What are the actual high and low doubles in the return from powl? The
> simplest reason for the reported result here would be that powl returns a
> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78569
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78599
Bug ID: 78599
Summary: [7 Regression] hwint.h:292:72: runtime error: shift
exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long int'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78569
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And for the insert-with-hint case:
@@ -848,13 +855,14 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
{ return _M_t._M_insert_unique_(__position, __x); }
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
- template::value>::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78598
Bug ID: 78598
Summary: tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:835:16: runtime error: signed
integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For example:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h
@@ -795,12 +795,19 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
{ return _M_t._M_insert_unique(__x); }
#if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78597
Bug ID: 78597
Summary: [7 regression] test case
gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-float128-ieee.c (and
others) fail starting with r242780
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78596
Bug ID: 78596
Summary: combine.c:12561:14: runtime error: left shift of
negative value -9
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77532
--- Comment #8 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
ICEs from above are fixed a while ago, not present with gfortran-7-20161127.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78594
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40191
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40191&action=edit
Proposed patch that fixes the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
Bug ID: 78595
Summary: Unnecessary copies in _Rb_tree
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
At the time, Breno reported 0x403b as the high half, which is
accurate. Looking back, I didn't get a report of the low half. If somehow
that were produced as a negative number, that would also a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On a related note, Jim told me he is seeing following failures
on aarch64-none-elf before and after updating the tree.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memset-chk.c execution, -O2
-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70718
--- Comment #1 from Alexey Neyman ---
Ping? [trivial patch]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78594
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78594
Bug ID: 78594
Summary: Bug in November 11th, 2016 change to rs6000.md
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Works with a public type declaration :
$ cat z2.f90
module m1
public
type t
integer :: a
end type
end
module m2
use m1
interface operator(+)
module procedure add
end int
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
