https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85841
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 21 06:45:55 2018
New Revision: 260433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-21 Janus Weil
PR fortran/85841
* lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85841
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82914
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> (In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #4)
> > Here, GCC says the alignment of 'b' is 1, not 8. What happened to the
> > attribute?
>
> GCC silently drops it, with
xpand
pr85852-1.c: In function 'ki':
pr85852-1.c:4:10: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
double zo = 1.1 * nq - nq;
^~
0xc9b59f crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20180520/work/gcc-9-20180520/gcc/toplev.c:325
0xa95733 contains_struct_
0.0) * mo - mo;
~~~^~
0xc9b59f crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20180520/work/gcc-9-20180520/gcc/toplev.c:325
0xa95733 contains_struct_check(tree_node*, tree_node_structure_enum, char
const*, int, char const*)
/var/tmp/portage/sys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85666
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Thank you for your interest in the MMIX port.
(In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #1)
>
> > #define MMIX_CFUN_NEEDS_SAVED_EH_RETURN_ADDRESS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 21 03:53:00 2018
New Revision: 260432
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260432&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85843 - warning in logic_error copy constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66694
--- Comment #9 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: pault at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 6:00 AM
To: urbanj...@comcast.net
Subject: [Bug fortran/66694] Fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:50:54PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
>
> Jonathan Wakely changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|WAITI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun May 20 23:50:08 2018
New Revision: 260427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85843 fix "should be explicitly initialized" warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85851
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #11 from Angus Gibson ---
Apologies if this is unrelated to the issue at hand (I don't quite understand
how everything is inter-related yet), but maybe it helps. First up, here's what
valgrind says about the segfault:
...
loc(cs%v(2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85851
Bug ID: 85851
Summary: trunk 260152 ICE in gfc_conv_structure Segmentation
fault at trans-expr.c:7810
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I will see if I can reproduce this here with you example and if so will get on
it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85666
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
An observation (does not pretend to be a fix) to make gcc compile standard
library and be able to build runnable hello world on gcc master:
1. MMIX_CFUN_NEEDS_SAVED_EH_RETURN_ADDRESS can be unoptimised
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 07:27:28PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> i.e. there's no invalid C++ at all, you're just asking for all warnings to
> break your b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, thanks! I'd be very interested in hearing what you discover.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #16 from Timothy Pearson ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #15)
> PHP's reliance on frequent indirect branches makes it essentially the worst
> case for this sort of thing. When Spectre v2 CVE mitigations are in place
> for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
PHP's reliance on frequent indirect branches makes it essentially the worst
case for this sort of thing. When Spectre v2 CVE mitigations are in place for
user code, you will see performance issues on all arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85850
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
So is there a quick workaround for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85850
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
In libcpp/system.h, is included too late, after messing with macros, it
should move earlier with the other includes. We could probably also avoid
#defining true/false in C++ (just a warning).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82091
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I do see this error now also with the trunk version [r260425] under Darwin 17.5
with Xcode 9.3.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85850
Bug ID: 85850
Summary: [9.0 Regression] gcc 9.0 doesn't compile with Xcode
9.3.1
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> However I don't see any failures with this variant:
Sorry, I was a bit too quick in submitting this. It's really not a good
example, since it's missing an "imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #14 from Timothy Pearson ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #13)
> This was prototyped and measured against the firmware fixes with
> indistinguishable results. So the complexity of a software solution, with
> its impacts on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
--- Comment #4 from Tom Westerhout ---
A few configurations on which the attached example fails to compile:
$ g++-6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/6/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
--- Comment #3 from Tom Westerhout ---
Created attachment 44153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44153&action=edit
Preprocessed source
Result after preprocessing test.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
--- Comment #2 from Tom Westerhout ---
Created attachment 44152
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44152&action=edit
Sample code triggering the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80657
--- Comment #10 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Just applied the fix: gfortran delivers an error message and exits. In
10 milliseconds!
Thank you for fixing this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Severity|blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85842
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85842
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 49636, which changed state.
Bug 49636 Summary: [F03] ASSOCIATE construct confused with slightly complicated
case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44106|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80657
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82275
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80657
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 18:08:04 2018
New Revision: 260424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80657
Backport from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
This was prototyped and measured against the firmware fixes with
indistinguishable results. So the complexity of a software solution, with its
impacts on Linux distributions, was not warranted. (That is, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82275
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 17:16:09 2018
New Revision: 260423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82275
Backport from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85845
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code:
typedef long unsigned a;
extern "C" void *memset(void *, int, a);
typedef struct b c;
enum d { e };
template class f {
public:
template f(g);
};
typedef f<1, long> h;
template struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> If I am not mistaken (problem with the change log entry), the patch in
> comment 5 has been included in revision r260414 (pr49636).
Yes, you are right. I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72769
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28689
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85829
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
>
> So I would suggest to revisit PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY wrt PARTIAL_REG_STALL
> for Haswell+
We should do that for GCC 9. For GCC 8, we should restore what we had
befor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #4 from Joshua Cogliati ---
And to replicate it with the simple program:
gfortran -Wall -g -o simple simple.f90
valgrind --leak-check=full ./simple
and you get things like:
==19171== 323 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85849
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Cogliati ---
Created attachment 44150
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44150&action=edit
simple program to demonstrate problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
Joshua Cogliati changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jjcogliati-r1 at yahoo dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
If I am not mistaken (problem with the change log entry), the patch in comment
5 has been included in revision r260414 (pr49636).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85849
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On May 20, 2018 2:53:31 PM GMT+02:00, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85849
>
>Bug ID: 85849
> Summary: [9 Regression] -O3 b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85849
Bug ID: 85849
Summary: [9 Regression] -O3 bootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85841
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> This PR could probably merged with pr85839.
They're somewhat related, but I opened two separate PRs on purpose!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #57 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Andrew, could you refresh your patch for the current trunk branch?
It doesn't fully apply for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
Bug ID: 85848
Summary: Incorrect handling of explicit casting to move-only
types
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80657
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 11:12:53 2018
New Revision: 260419
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80657
Backport from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 11:07:44 2018
New Revision: 260418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/49636
Backport from t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82275
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 11:04:14 2018
New Revision: 260417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82275
Backport from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82275
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 10:54:24 2018
New Revision: 260416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82275
Correcting Chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83146
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82923
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
>
> Added:
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_type_42.f90
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/fortran/match.c
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
Sorry, this last was the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80657
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 10:08:24 2018
New Revision: 260415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80657
* resolve.c (fla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 10:04:46 2018
New Revision: 260414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/49636
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66694
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 09:59:54 2018
New Revision: 260413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82923
PR fortran/66694
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82923
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 09:59:54 2018
New Revision: 260413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82923
PR fortran/6669
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82617
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 20 09:59:54 2018
New Revision: 260413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82923
PR fortran/66694
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67958
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Created attachment 39731 [details]
> > Patch fixing the failures with the patches for pr71767
>
> please send this patch to gcc-patches for review
This patch has never been intended to be submitte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85845
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
78 matches
Mail list logo
