https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 05:24:42AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> the same thing also happens if the variables are declared as
> integer(kind=1), as I found yesterday, also on assignm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514
--- Comment #4 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to JunMa from comment #2)
> > I had got confused by the comments in vrp pass. the condition
> > if ((kind != ENUM1) && (kind != ENUM2))
> > is not always fal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90538
Bug ID: 90538
Summary: Redeclaration error when expanding parameter pack
multiple times in a lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69316
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86476
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90537
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90537
Bug ID: 90537
Summary: Implement P1286R2, Contra CWG DR1778
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Ravens ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> To make the story short: compile your code with -Wno-conversion as a work
> around.
>
> This is needed starting with at least 4.6.0 revision r161462 (20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Ravens ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2)
> Hm, another question: Which gfortran version do you use?
> If your version is _really_ old, it might not yet have
> the -Wno-conversion flag.
"gfortran -v" giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The testcase compiles without problems for me with:
gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20190519 (experimental) [trunk revision 271384]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
To make the story short: compile your code with -Wno-conversion as a work
around.
This is needed starting with at least 4.6.0 revision r161462 (2010-06-27), but
not needed with 4.5.4 or earlier.
Note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hm, another question: Which gfortran version do you use?
If your version is _really_ old, it might not yet have
the -Wno-conversion flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90453
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Note that vec_pack works for unsigned as well.
For vec_unpack[hl] of unsigned you can do a vec_merge[hl] instead (with the
first arg a zero vector).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90447
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Looking at f3, in combine, for -2, we manage to match
(plus:SI (plus:SI (ltu:SI (reg:CCC 17 flags)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(reg:SI 91))
(const_int -2 [0xfffe])))
whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
Bug ID: 90536
Summary: Use of -fno-range-check creates warnings or errors
when assigning to a byte variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90535
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the correct option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fdelete-null-pointer-checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90535
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90534
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90535
Bug ID: 90535
Summary: Wrong branch selected if (--(s.ptr))
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
Allan Jensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linux at carewolf dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90534
Bug ID: 90534
Summary: ICE in consteval in GCCs 8.3, 8.2, 8.1, 7.3, 7.2 and
7.1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Sun May 19 19:38:11 2019
New Revision: 271384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038 Reap dead children when wait=.false.
When using posix_spa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90498
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 19 18:08:28 2019
New Revision: 271383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90498
* trans-stmt.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #22 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
I'll get lined up to fix this tomorrow night.
Thanks for all the testing.
Regards
Paul
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 11:58, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
In ira pass, we had:
(insn 549 539 550 4 (set (reg:DI 286)
(mult:DI (zero_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg/f:DI 522) 4))
(const_int 4294967295 [0x]))) 179 {*pa.md:5338}
(expr_li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
(insn 538 512 539 4 (set (reg:DI 1 %r1 [282])
(plus:DI (reg:DI 27 %r27)
(high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("default_target_expmed") [flags 0x202]
90 {*pa.md:2634}
(nil))
(note 539 538
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #62 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun May 19 16:03:17 2019
New Revision: 271381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin - fix PR86215 by backporting 80556.
The backport had been missed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun May 19 16:03:17 2019
New Revision: 271381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin - fix PR86215 by backporting 80556.
The backport had been missed.
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54262
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90533
Bug ID: 90533
Summary: [C++20] cannot redeclare telmplate function if it
contains lambda expression in its declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90519
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90421
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90499
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90504
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Breakpoint 1, emit_insn (x=0x83fffd0474c0) at ../../gcc/gcc/emit-rtl.c:5074
5074 rtx_insn *last = get_last_insn ();
(gdb) p debug_rtx(x)
(insn 3285 0 0 (set (reg:SI 52 %fr24)
(subreg:SI (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libgcc |target
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90498
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 19 12:32:55 2019
New Revision: 271380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90498
* trans-stmt.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 19 11:26:20 2019
New Revision: 271379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-19 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78290
* gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88821
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 19 11:24:17 2019
New Revision: 271378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-19 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88821
* ChangeLog: Add f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 46216 [details]
> Patch for the remaining problems.
I have the patch in my working tree without any problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alisdairm at me dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90531
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88821
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88821
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 19 10:21:06 2019
New Revision: 271377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-19 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88821
* expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #36 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 19 08:22:41 2019
New Revision: 271376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-19 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90329
* invoke.
59 matches
Mail list logo
