https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72688
Bug ID: 72688
Summary: Norton antivirus tech
Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))number usa customer service
phone number
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
--- Comment #8 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk ---
Hi kargl,
I am getting the bug with gfortran 5.3.1. could you try to reproduce the bug
with that version?
Regards,
Wadud.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72691
Bug ID: 72691
Summary: Cisco Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Cisco router
tech support number
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72692
Bug ID: 72692
Summary: Netgear Tech support Number@1 844-330-2330@ Netgear
Wireless router tech support number
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 39023
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39023&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72695
Bug ID: 72695
Summary: Netgear Router Tech support Number@1 844-330-2330@
Netgear Wireless router tech support number
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72698
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
This variant seems to work :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
character(:), allocatable :: z
allocate (z, source=repeat('', 4))
print *, len(z), ' >>' // z // '<<'
end
$ gfortran-7-20160724 z3.f90
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
No ICE without explicit "implicit none".
But of course again with added option -fimplicit-none.
$ cat z2.f90
function f() result(z)
character(:), allocatable :: z
h = z(1)
z(1) = h
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699
Bug ID: 72699
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at
fortran/dependency.c:1257
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72698
Bug ID: 72698
Summary: ICE in lhd_incomplete_type_error, at langhooks.c:205
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
Alexander Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72705
Bug ID: 72705
Summary: Netgear Router Tech support Number@1 800-653-1176@
Netgear Wireless router tech support number
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72698
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
ud.
It compiles with
gcc version 4.9.4 20160726 (prerelease) (GCC)
gcc version 5.4.1 20160726 (GCC)
I don't have 5.3.1 and don't intend to install it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72415
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
--- Comment #10 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk ---
I find this a very unusual response :-( What's the purpose of testing other
compilers when the bug is in version 5.3.1? I'm not happy that the ticket has
been closed without asking me whether I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-07-25 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 39024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39024&action=edit
Pre-processed source file
Minimal command line:
gfortran-5 pr72051.f90 -fcheck=mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
--- Comment #14 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk ---
Do I need to compile with "-fcheck=mem" to get it working?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051
--- Comment #16 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk ---
I guess I just have to wait for a gfortran update in Fedora Core 23?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71833
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 26 20:29:12 2016
New Revision: 238765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71833 - member template with two parameter packs
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
So, perhaps simply:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 6bcb41a..83fd9a4 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ cx_check_missing_mem_inits (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-07-21 00:00:00 |
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71939
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> While testing a fix for bug 71912 and comparing the C++ front end results to
> those of the C front end I came across the following te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71949
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT is an initializer, not an expression that can be used in
assignments.
The C11 model is that it may not be valid to do assignments such as
> atomic_flag f2;
> f2 = ATO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jul 26 22:42:49 2016
New Revision: 238774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/71862
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72103
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25844
Anh Vo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72707
Bug ID: 72707
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9/5/6/7 regression] local anonymous
union member hides names in the same scope
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72708
Bug ID: 72708
Summary: error on anonymous union in an unnamed namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72708
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think so. Static != internal linkage. If anything you found a defect
in the C++ language.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71869
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jul 27 04:45:59 2016
New Revision: 238779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-26 Michael Meissner
PR target/71869
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
