https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the asan pass emits the checks in the order of first testing for non-zero
and then doing the sub-quadword comparison (if any), but uses bitwise and in
between the two conditions and the choice to expand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67502
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:28:27 2015
New Revision: 227605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/67502
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_for_loop): Emit DECL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67514
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:31:14 2015
New Revision: 227607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67514
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): For loop SIM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67511
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:30:29 2015
New Revision: 227606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67511
* semantics.c (handle_omp_for_class_iterator)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67517
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:32:13 2015
New Revision: 227608
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227608&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67517
* gimplify.c (gimplify_scan_omp_clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67521
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:32:54 2015
New Revision: 227609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67521
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67522
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:34:42 2015
New Revision: 227610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67522
* semantics.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67169
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67523
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:35:56 2015
New Revision: 227611
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67523
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): If inner stm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67502
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:37:00 2015
New Revision: 227612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227612&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/67502
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_for_loop): Emit DECL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67511
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:37:48 2015
New Revision: 227613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67511
* semantics.c (handle_omp_for_class_iterator)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67514
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:38:30 2015
New Revision: 227614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227614&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67514
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): For loop SIM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67521
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:39:53 2015
New Revision: 227616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67521
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67517
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:39:20 2015
New Revision: 227615
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67517
* gimplify.c (gimplify_scan_omp_clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67522
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:40:59 2015
New Revision: 227617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67522
* semantics.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67523
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 10 07:41:34 2015
New Revision: 227618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67523
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): If inner stm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unnecessary trampolines for |violation of
|nested p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Ryabinin ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #1)
> (In reply to Andrey Ryabinin from comment #0)
> > (shadow value is usually zero).
>
> What makes you think so? AFAIU for less-than-8-byte scalars it's always
> n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66993
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67169
--- Comment #4 from David Woodhouse ---
It's required by Windows but not by UEFI, which otherwise has the same ABI. We
had previously been able to build UEFI firmware with MinGW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Ryabinin ---
(In reply to Andrey Ryabinin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Andrey Ryabinin from comment #0)
> > > (shadow value is usually zero).
> >
> > What makes you thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63570
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67169
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> What happens to performance? Simply making changes to
> make sanitizer happy seems rather questionable. It's clear
> from context that if base_name == NULL, then base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66707
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36318
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36318&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #29 from Douglas Mencken ---
Vanilla GCC 5.2 bootstraps perfectly (without --disable-checking) on my side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62246
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
eth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Fixed by the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-07/msg00166.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61676
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian.thompson at liv dot ac.uk
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63494
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwmwalrus at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Arthur LAMBERT changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lambertarthur22 at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> Could you please test it?
It fixes all test cases for the cross trunk sh4-unknown-linux-gnu compiler.
There is no new failures with the top level "make -k check".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #5)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> > Could you please test it?
>
> It fixes all test cases for the cross trunk sh4-unknown-linux-gnu compiler.
> There is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Fomin ---
There is another problem with the same pattern.
Suppose an V16SF insn mode and AVX512F target (e.g. KNL).
We'll emit something like vandps %zmm1, %zmm2, %zmm3; however, vps
family requires AVX512VL and/or A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Thu Sep 10 10:37:17 2015
New Revision: 227629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch/expand] Cost instruction sequences when doing left wide shift
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Sep 10 10:43:43 2015
New Revision: 227630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 67439: Allow matching of *arm32_movhf when -mrest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed for trunk.
Will backport to 5 and 4.9 in a few days
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> > The attached example requires generation of trampolines. This may be due to
> > bug 57999, but I think a front-end fix would be more reliable.
>
> Please cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Couldn't you put the static chain for the dispatching subprograms into the
> vtable of the tagged type?
Presumably not, the vtable layout is constrained by the C++ compatibility and
this extends to local t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> The truth is, the versions of GNAT released by AdaCore use a general scheme
> to eliminate (almost) all trampolines, at least on native platforms, so
> there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
Bug ID: 67537
Summary: [6 Regression] r225189 breaks building boost hana
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fedora has policies against executable stack, and fewer off them are always
> welcome. Are your changes restricted to gcc/ada, or would you need
> reviewers frm other parts of GCC?
The latter, although th
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mrestelli at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code is invalid since the array dimension is missing,
but since it is an ICE I am reporting it.
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.0.0 20150910 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67416
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My first impression is that this is a clang bug.
This:
template using _TMC =
_TC<(sizeof...(_Elements) == sizeof...(_UElements)),
_Elements...>;
should make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67473
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mrestelli at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The attached code produces a segmentation fault:
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.0.0 20150910
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
Bug ID: 67540
Summary: string_intrinsics_inc.c sanitizer detects null pointer
passed to memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template
struct pair { };
template
void sink(_Elements&&...);
template
struct _TC
{
template
static constexpr bool _MoveConstructibleTuple()
{
sink( pair<_Elements, _UElements>{} ... )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:00:06AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
>
> --- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I'll see if I can do a reasonable library fix, even if the problem is
caused by a buggy front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> It's undefined behavior to pass a NULL pointer into a function?
To a function that does not allow it? Yes.
Citing the C standard:
7.21.2.1/2:
"The memcpy functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reported as https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24770
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #11 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 36320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36320&action=edit
Reproducer with an uninitialized variable (no OUT parameter)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks. I misremembered, the testcase has a single variable with two fields,
one uninitialized and one initialized, instead of two variables, but it's
exactly the same reasoning (and it would be trivial to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #13 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> Thanks. I misremembered, the testcase has a single variable with two
> fields, one uninitialized and one initialized, instead of two variables, but
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Sep 10 14:53:48 2015
New Revision: 227646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67506
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_extending_set_of_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67517
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Sep 10 15:07:02 2015
New Revision: 227647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-09-10 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67500
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66993
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Sep 10 15:22:20 2015
New Revision: 227648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/66993
* module.c (read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67318
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 10 15:36:54 2015
New Revision: 227650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-09-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67318
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67318
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Still happens on gcc-5 branch.
(This breaks building the Linux kernel with -O3 with my config)
-fno-ipa-icf "fixes" the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 36321
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36321&action=edit
Patch
I sent this change this morning to gcc-patches but it seems to have
disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
Bug ID: 67541
Summary: -Wconversion-extra no warning on double = double +
single
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
Bug ID: 67542
Summary: ICE on initializing type variable with a longer array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
The ICE disappears if some prints are added :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n
character(8) :: c(1)
end type
type(t) :: x = t(1, ['a'])
type(t) :: y = t(1, ['a', 'b'])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Bayne ---
Ah, so it's fixed in trunk. Thanks for the info.
RE the warnings making sense: floating-point promotions may not lose data, but
they do have an associated runtime cost (about equivalent to an add on recent
Int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67543
Bug ID: 67543
Summary: ICE on associate with improper association
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #13 from İsmail Dönmez ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #12)
> Created attachment 36321 [details]
> Patch
>
> I sent this change this morning to gcc-patches but it seems to have
> disappeared.
The patch declares the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67526
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Sep 10 17:13:11 2015
New Revision: 227651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #1)
> (In reply to Andrey Ryabinin from comment #0)
> > (shadow value is usually zero).
>
> What makes you think so? AFAIU for less-than-8-byte scalars it's always
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-09-10 1:01 PM, ismail at i10z dot com wrote:
> The patch declares the functions but those functions do not exist on
> mingw-w64,
> seems to be this will just fail with an undefined symb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #15 from İsmail Dönmez ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #14)
> On 2015-09-10 1:01 PM, ismail at i10z dot com wrote:
> > The patch declares the functions but those functions do not exist on
> > mingw-w64,
> > seems to be this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67526
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Sep 10 18:07:07 2015
New Revision: 227655
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227655&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67526
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
