https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120623
Bug ID: 120623
Summary: gcobol-16 on i386-solaris results in "out of memory".
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120623
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119211
Bug 119211 depends on bug 119217, which changed state.
Bug 119217 Summary: cobol: build broken on non-linux by unguarded use of
Linux-specific facilities.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #26 from Robert Dubner ---
*Thank* you.
Those hints led to a successful compilation.
This doesn't work:
../configure CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib
--disable-bootstrap
So, I cribbed some of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120501
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #11 from Robert Dubner ---
I suspect that the preference for prefix notation is an historical oddity.
And it is not hard to write pseudo code that demonstrates extra temporary
variables might be needed.
And it's always fun to look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120422
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119975
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Robert Dubn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120422
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119524
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120501
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120501
Bug ID: 120501
Summary: Error parsing ">>turn"
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #10 from Robert Dubner ---
Yes, thank you.
I don't mean to seem like I am being argumentative.
I can't help but note that your selected commands generated three lines of
output from a 50K cppcheck.list file that is 766 lines long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #8 from Robert Dubner ---
I don't like making blind changes. I need to duplicate the report you created
so that I know that any changes I make actually fix cppcheck outputs without
creating new ones.
The "problems" reported by Cppc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #6 from Robert Dubner ---
I compiled and installed cppcheck 2.17, which was a bit of an intelligence
test. The error messages were very chatty, but didn't actually tell me what I
needed to know. It took a while, but the internet ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #4 from Robert Dubner ---
I fear that my ignorance is holed up in a bit of a fortress.
I have installed Cppcheck 2.7 on an Ubuntu 22.04 LTS x86_64 system.
When I try to run it on just one file that you mention, I get the following.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119883
--- Comment #3 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to James K. Lowden from comment #2)
> The issue appears to boil down to YYLTYPE and YDFLTYPE, which are identical,
> being defined differently somehow, somewhere. A clue perhaps: in
> gcc/cobol/ut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119632
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119810
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119771
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119772
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119790
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119770
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119337
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119883
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Robert Dubn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119885
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #2 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> I tried out the static analyser cppcheck on
> the source code of /cobol/.
>
> The most important things it said were:
David, I am not familiar with cppcheck.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120251
--- Comment #6 from Robert Dubner ---
And this time I figured out how to change a locale to test it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120251
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120251
--- Comment #4 from Robert Dubner ---
The reason for the locale problem is because COBOL has an often-used feature
whereby alphanumeric strings can be set to a figurative constant named
"HIGH-VALUE", which by default is 0xFF.
And, yes, "by defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #16 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> (In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #9)
> > Whether or not this will fix any other problems, I don't know. I do know
> > that valgrind was reporting uniniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #15 from Robert Dubner ---
Oh. Well, that's a comedown.
I am compiling GCC-16 on an Ubuntu 22.04 LTS system, with the Ubuntu
distribution version of GCC-11. When I build GCC-6 and run "make check-cobol"
I am getting, as of today,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #13 from Robert Dubner ---
Thanks. Sadly, that didn't tell me anything useful.
The front-end code that's failing is slated to be completely eliminated when
Jim gets a chance to work on it, probably in the next couple of weeks.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #11 from Robert Dubner ---
I am not surprised. When I first read about it a couple of days ago, it looked
to me like two separate problems.
Primus: We talked casually about my working with you to duplicate the working
environment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #9 from Robert Dubner ---
Whether or not this will fix any other problems, I don't know. I do know that
valgrind was reporting uninitialized data, and now it is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #7 from Robert Dubner ---
Never mind. I am seeing the valgrind error, thank you very much.
Let me see if I can get rid of it, and we'll move on from there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #6 from Robert Dubner ---
Declarative and Exception processing have been changed significantly in recent
days. Is the declarative_1 problem still showing up?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119215
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119215
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119211
Bug 119211 depends on bug 119759, which changed state.
Bug 119759 Summary: LICENSE file in gcc/cobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119759
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119759
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119759
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119809
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119809
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119244
--- Comment #34 from Robert Dubner ---
And it worked. Thanks again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119244
--- Comment #33 from Robert Dubner ---
Thank you. I'll give that a try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119244
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119456
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119694
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119694
--- Comment #7 from Robert Dubner ---
There are only a few getenv() calls that I regard as necessary. Those can be
renamed. As I said, GCOBOL_SHOW and GCOBOL_TRACE. There is a COBPATH that
operates like LD_LIBRARY_PATH; that can, and should,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119694
--- Comment #5 from Robert Dubner ---
As the parser parses each COBOL statement, it tends to call a function,
generally named parser_whatever. For example, the COBOL statement "OPEN INPUT
" results in the function parser_file_open() being call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119694
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119682
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119414
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
--- Comment #18 from Robert Dubner ---
The revised code will be based on passing pointers to lists of integers.
(I have managed to talk Jim out of his desire to pass structures created with
GENERIC to the library code. He thinks I am a sissy f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119682
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119636
--- Comment #2 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #1)
> The revised code will be based on passing pointers to lists of integers.
>
> Those lists of integers are being established as static arrays of type
> integer_ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119364
--- Comment #17 from Robert Dubner ---
Oi. "Wait for me, I'm your leader!"
Jim and I are in the process of a complete rewrite of how the declaratives and
exception processing are handled. I believe that most, if not all, of the
concerns raise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119636
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119414
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119637
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119521
--- Comment #7 from Robert Dubner ---
The DB programs are not among the ones we test.
When I run the program, it rapidly gets stuck in an infinite loop around lines
511 513. It just keeps attempting to PERFORM DEBUG-ALL-PROCS, repeatedly. So,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119521
--- Comment #2 from Robert Dubner ---
Additional: The leaking memory is because exception checking is turned on.
Still looking...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119521
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119443
Bug ID: 119443
Summary: Peculiar behavior of the new dg-output-file directive
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119241
--- Comment #24 from Robert Dubner ---
Here comes perhaps too much information.
That "value thing" was added late. I believe it arrived at the point where Jim
realized he needed to be doing compile-time numerical calculations for the
Compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119241
--- Comment #14 from Robert Dubner ---
"Wait for me! I am your leader!"
I am not *used* to this.
What I *am* used to is people telling me there's a problem in my code, and then
standing around tapping their feet impatiently until I fix it.
O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119211
Bug 119211 depends on bug 119213, which changed state.
Bug 119213 Summary: gcc/cobol/Make-lang.in: suspicious -DEXEC_LIB with
hardcoded lib64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119241
--- Comment #6 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> In my experiments with x86_64 Darwin and Linux, I have managed to convert
> the library to use libquadmath.
>
> I started to try and apply Jakub's suggestions to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #20 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> (In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > > (In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #7)
> > >
[...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
--- Comment #18 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Note,
> * gengen.cc: applies if( !optimize ) test
> is not properly formatted ChangeLog entry, unfortunately it got through
> pre-commit hooks.
> For n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119214
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
80 matches
Mail list logo
