[Bug fortran/52333] Explicit etime interface should work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333 --- Comment #7 from pablomme 2012-02-22 04:42:30 UTC --- > What happens with all your compilers if you supply > an explicit interface for say DSIN. For DSIN all of them behave like gfortran: -- $ cat test_dsin.f90 PROGRAM test_dsin IMPLICIT NO

[Bug target/52301] avr-gcc 4.6.2 produces NOP loop in simple while statement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52301 --- Comment #6 from rickyrockrat 2012-02-22 05:05:56 UTC --- I guess I'm a little confused. How can GCC NOT know it can change? Any RAM location not only can but usually does change. It seems that volatile should be the norm. Whatever. I'll jus

[Bug c/52334] New: The user of "zero" register is wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52334 Bug #: 52334 Summary: The user of "zero" register is wrong Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.3.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P

[Bug middle-end/52334] The user of "zero" register is wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52334 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end Severity|critical

[Bug fortran/52325] unclear error: Unclassifiable statement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325 --- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-02-22 06:49:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Submitted patch (pending review): > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00089.html OK ;-) this would be a significant improvement. I think it

[Bug middle-end/52334] The user of "zero" register is wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52334 --- Comment #2 from haichang417 2012-02-22 06:52:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > First can you provide the preprocessed source? Second can you try with a > newer > version of GCC like maybe 4.4.6? Third can you describe why you think the

[Bug fortran/52325] unclear error: Unclassifiable statement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-02-22 06:53:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Submitted patch (pending review): > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00089.html and a nitpick... it should be 'non-derived type' instead on '

[Bug fortran/52335] New: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] I/O: -std=f95 rejects valid DELIM= in OPEN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52335 Bug #: 52335 Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] I/O: -std=f95 rejects valid DELIM= in OPEN Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug c/52336] New: Change the private field without any warning or error.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52336 Bug #: 52336 Summary: Change the private field without any warning or error. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/51716] access to private member possible

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51716 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maxim.prohorenko at gmail

[Bug c++/52336] Change the private field without any warning or error.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52336 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/52337] New: memory hole

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52337 Bug #: 52337 Summary: memory hole Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: c++

<    1   2