https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still there in gcc 7.0 trunk 239276
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
A fix for the offending instruction at trans-expr.c:2107
"n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) (m < 0 ? -m : m);"
might be
"n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) (m < 0 ? - (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) m : m);"
So it seems this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
It appears not depending on i value, for i=1 or 2.
No explicit options used.
Of course I used options -fsanizitized=address -fsanitized=undefined
to generate gfortran.
I think it is either a gfortran or a s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo