http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #39 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-12-21 08:02:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 29019
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29019
objdump of the offending routine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #40 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-12-21 08:03:49 UTC ---
After getting an asan instrumented libgfortran to work (thanks hjl, jakub), I'm
still getting the error message.
==66645== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55772
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #41 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-12-21
08:11:19 UTC ---
Wild guess: does Fortran have any custom unwinding mechanism (like exceptions
in C++ or longjmp in C)?
For C/C++ we've spent quite some time to get rid of false stack-buffe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #42 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-12-21 08:18:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> Wild guess: does Fortran have any custom unwinding mechanism (like exceptions
> in C++ or longjmp in C)?
> For C/C++ we've spent quite some ti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #43 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-12-21
08:23:09 UTC ---
false stack-buffer-overflow reports may appear if you have stack unwinding
*somewhere*, not necessary in this routine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55772
Matthias Urlichs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard 2012-12-21 09:38:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I can replicate on x86_64 with the jdom.jar from jdom-1.1.3-3.fc18.noarch but
> not with the older jdom.jar from jdom-1.1.1-1.el6.noarch
Which isn'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard 2012-12-21 09:42:28
UTC ---
The crash should of course not happen, but since jdom now depends on jaxen just
including the jaxen.jar on the classpath seems to work around the issue:
./jc1 jdom.jar fhash-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-12-21
09:46:41 UTC ---
Just for the record:
llvm implementation of asan does not catch these either for the same reason.
It would be interesting to find a way to implement this in both compilers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55766
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55663
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leonid at volnitsky dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-12-21
10:06:50 UTC ---
I'm beginning to think the test case is invalid. The operands of the
multiplication in f1 are unsigned long and float, but they are not converted to
double. Instead the un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55770
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
10:12:24 UTC ---
Yeah, it's very broken - don't use it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
10:30:54 UTC ---
It no longer reproduces for me ... we no longer unswitch. But the issue
is certainly latent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061
Jean-Pierre Flori changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpflori at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
10:32:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 10:32:43 2012
New Revision: 194659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194659
Log:
2012-12-21 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53866
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Bug #: 55773
Summary: C++ class object destructors are not called which a
static class object in destructor function in a shared
library after dlclose is called.
Classification: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55765
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-21
11:57:41 UTC ---
> but of course even better would be to fix the reason for this hack - why
> are those Ada files built with a C++ compiler in the first place?!
Probably because it would be to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #35 from albcl111 2012-12-21
11:58:37 UTC ---
Well said….positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked
to check out new stuff you weblog
airlinesplanet
http://www.airlinesplanet.com/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|rguenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Bug #: 55774
Summary: AVX integer store segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
12:47:54 UTC ---
Ick, I had
Index: gcc/cprop.c
===
--- gcc/cprop.c (revision 194658)
+++ gcc/cprop.c (working copy)
@@ -1554
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|mpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 13:48:19
UTC ---
> Honza, any thoughts on this (both the combine vs. strset and local register
> vars vs. string insns)?
Well, Steven's suggestion to track local explicit reg vars in seems reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 13:49:15
UTC ---
> Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
Well, replacing parameter by known constant should not pessimize in general...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
13:55:41 UTC ---
Or rather convert.c:convert_to_real:
/* Propagate the cast into the operation. */
if (itype != type && FLOAT_TYPE_P (type))
switch (TREE_CODE (expr))
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
13:57:40 UTC ---
And as usual - convert.c contains premature optimization (this one hardly
worth) and/or duplicates of fold-const.c. Thus removing the whole
NEGATE_EXPR case looks like the cor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-21
13:59:29 UTC ---
Yeah, I wonder if that transformation wasn't meant to be guarded by also
FLOAT_TYPE_P (itype), comparing TYPE_PRECISION of a floating type with say
integer type or vector type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:01:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
> Well, replacing parameter by known constant should not pessimize in ge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:08:24 UTC ---
Btw, one thing to improve would be the excessive number of aliasing runtime
checks the vectorizer currently generates. That would also help himeno.
What is missing here is co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-21
14:10:19 UTC ---
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't right
now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
removes restrict for no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:12:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar.
I think that would not help as we'd likely propagate constants through it.
But yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21
14:16:09 UTC ---
When writting symtab_real_symbol_p I made external nodes to not be real symbols
unless they are explicitelly called or refereed.
The reason is that we keep around virtual exten
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 14:22:28
UTC ---
> There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't
> right
> now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
> removes restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55106
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-21
14:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'm still hitting this failure when building GMP 5.1.0 for i686-w64-mingw32:
>
> libtool: compile: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas 2012-12-21 14:29:40
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:29:34 2012
New Revision: 194663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194663
Log:
2012-12-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:33:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:13 2012
New Revision: 194665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194665
Log:
2012-12-21 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:34:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:59 2012
New Revision: 194666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194666
Log:
2012-12-21 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #11 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21
15:01:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 29021
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29021
Patch I am testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Bug #: 55775
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE when building pari
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #12 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
15:59:36 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Dec 21 15:59:27 2012
New Revision: 194669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194669
Log:
PR bootstrap/54659
compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 16:15:34
UTC ---
> As another data point, in our internal benchmarks I had tried a few
> values and 99.9% gave the best performance. Just going down to 99.0%
> reduced the inlining too much, even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55776
Bug #: 55776
Summary: -Wshadow generates an incorrect warning with enum
classes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-21
16:26:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 16:15:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas 2012-12-21 16:51:41
UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't look down the PR - I thought that we were just at the stage of
your opening email :-(
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
Bug #: 55777
Summary: Inlining nomips16 function into mips16 function can
result in undefined builtins
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52152
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Bug #: 55778
Summary: Variadic template extension possibly wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-12-21
18:37:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Am i wrong ?
Yes. The foo(std::string const&, Args...) overload is not in scope within
foo(int, Args...) so the call resolves to the foo(Args...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55779
Bug #: 55779
Summary: Debug program abort on pthread_exit() while using
-static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-21 18:54:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Dec 21 18:54:00 2012
New Revision: 194676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194676
Log:
2012-12-21 Steve Ellcey
PR boots
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55780
Bug #: 55780
Summary: effective targets arm_arch_v*_multilib are not strict
enough
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #2 from ph dunski 2012-12-21 19:17:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Am i wrong ?
>
> Yes. The foo(std::string const&, Args...) overload is not in scope within
> foo(int, Args...) so the ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #4 from ph dunski 2012-12-21 19:57:05 UTC
---
It is what i did ;)
But, i'm really not convicted, because, in my head, we should have a SFINAE
behaviour which should fall back into the good overloaded version until there
are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-21
20:50:52 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:50:48 2012
New Revision: 194679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194679
Log:
2012-12-21 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-12-21
21:05:36 UTC ---
No. SFINAE only applies if there's a substitution error, which doesn't apply
here. The foo(Args...) overload is viable and deduction succeeds unless the
argument types are not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-21
21:20:55 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:20:48 2012
New Revision: 194680
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194680
Log:
2012-12-21 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55672
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-21
21:28:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
> The difference is
>
> --- x.s2012-12-18 12:24:17.072888139 -0800
> +++ no-lra.s2012-12-18 12:30:11.419157548 -0800
> @@ -14,7 +14,7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55781
Bug #: 55781
Summary: -shared-libgcc does not completely undo -static-libgcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55782
Bug #: 55782
Summary: GCC needs a -shared-libstdc++ option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:06:42 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:06:38 2012
New Revision: 194682
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194682
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:21:20 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:21:14 2012
New Revision: 194684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194684
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:28:45 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:28:40 2012
New Revision: 194686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194686
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-21
22:31:46 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:31:42 2012
New Revision: 194687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194687
Log:
PR ada/53737
* sem_ch12.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-21
22:33:42 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:33:36 2012
New Revision: 194688
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194688
Log:
PR ada/53737
* sem_ch12.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-12-21
22:59:27 UTC ---
To the last test case of comment 0:
> gives an ICE (segfault) at
> vector_comp => field
>
> 0x62d477 gfc_trans_pointer_assignment(gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30996
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
