https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #8 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
The patch is no longer necessary, because it looks like the problem with
combine.c was fixed on 1 November:
===
r241744 | foreese | 2016-11-01 09:29:51 -0600 (Tue, 01 Nov 2016) | 5 lines
Mark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #11 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
You're right. I wasn't paying attention to the third ("function reverse ...")
in the bug report.
I believe that's fixed with the attached patch to trans-expr.c alon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #9 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
The attached patch adds a slight variation of Tobias Burnus's patch for 50069
to my patch for 55086, and it seems to fix the two tests in 50069.
"make check-fortran" runs wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #6 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
It's still there. I'm maintaining the attached changes to my debug tree.
(I'm not sure my last message got through.)
Louis
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 03:01:42 -0700
Lou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #5 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
It's still there. I'm maintaining these changes to my debug tree:
--- gcc/combine.c (revision 241547)
+++ gcc/combine.c (working copy)
@@ -11371,6 +11371,8 @@ simplify_compare_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #3 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
I agree. But in the interests of reporting the bug and proposing a patch as
soon as possible, I decided to minimize the risk of unintended consequences by
keeping things as simple as I could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #11 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
Dominique,
Vous avez raison; j'en suis désolé. Je viens de le faire.
Louis
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:47:39 -0700 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote
>https://gcc.gnu.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
--- Comment #10 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
Paul,
Fixed in revision 228376.
svn must have noticed that the two test files were executable. I'm not 100%
sure how they got that way; in at least one bug report, pr 52332, the
downl
