https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78189
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 7 08:05:08 2016
New Revision: 241892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78189
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 7 08:06:08 2016
New Revision: 241893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/37150
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78231
Bug ID: 78231
Summary: Should std::sort use unqualifed iter_swap?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72803
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 39977
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39977&action=edit
Test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72803
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78196
--- Comment #4 from tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Mon Nov 7 09:17:55 2016
New Revision: 241895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix the Windows native x86-64 build.
PR driver/7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78196
tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> So the caller of the gimple folding hook handles the EH stuff?
Yes.
> Of course it would be better if the builtins are ECF_NOTHROW; but that
> likely needs ana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78227
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 39978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39978&action=edit
gcc7-pr78227.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's a list of the currently failing test cases.
That doesn't look to bad, problems mostly seem to be
with SELECT TYPE and ALLOCATE.
llocate_class_3.f90
allocate_with_source_16.f90
alloc_comp_class_3.f03
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Nono, you misunderstood -- I meant for the if-converter to produce
if (LOOP_VECTORIZED)
{
for (;;) // outer loop
for (;;)
// if-converted inner loop
}
else
{
for (;;) // outer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78200
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So it's
addq(%r14), %rdi
jns .L98
.L98:
cmpl$2, %r9d
jne .L97
testq %rdi, %rdi
jle .L97
vs.
addq(%r14), %rdi
cmpq$0, %rdi
jge .L98
.L98:
jle .L97
cmpl$2, %r9d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78200
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So the non-canonical GIMPLE is actually created by loop versioning and
update-ssa
replacing uses with new defs but not re-canonicalizing operand order. Not
gimplification as I speculated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #9 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
The attached patch adds a slight variation of Tobias Burnus's patch for 50069
to my patch for 55086, and it seems to fix the two tests in 50069.
"make check-fortran" runs with no surprises.
Lou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #18 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 7 11:43:57 2016
New Revision: 241898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix PR target/77822: Use tighter predicates for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] arm64 |[6 Regression] arm64 Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #20 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One of the RTL sequences before combine showing the problem is:
(insn 94 93 95 18 (set (reg:DI 143)
(const_int 160 [0xa0])) "bad.cpp":19 50 {*movdi_aarch64}
(nil))
(insn 95 94 96 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78228
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 7 12:25:09 2016
New Revision: 241899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78228
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78218
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 7 12:26:00 2016
New Revision: 241900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78218
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 7 12:26:48 2016
New Revision: 241901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Richard Biener
PR target/78229
* config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[6/7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, so combine isn't really doing anything wrong here -- for the "plain"
shift it already only refuses it because the target does not allow it.
Some targets *do* allow shifting by amounts more than a re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78229
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 7 12:32:34 2016
New Revision: 241902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Richard Biener
PR target/78229
* config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Oh, I see. Makes sense. I'll look into it soonish after handling a
high-priority interrupt that came in over the weekend...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78211
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Hmm, good question whether it makes sense or not; some -fcompare-debug checking
with LTO would be useful, the question is only what to compare.
Simply rejecting -fcompare-debug with -ffat-lto-objects would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
Bug ID: 78232
Summary: [7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr48124-4.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65105
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 7 13:07:32 2016
New Revision: 241903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/71529
* gcc.target/i386/pr71529.C: Moved to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71529
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 7 13:07:32 2016
New Revision: 241903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/71529
* gcc.target/i386/pr71529.C: Moved to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 7 13:07:32 2016
New Revision: 241903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/71529
* gcc.target/i386/pr71529.C: Moved to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and the duplicate costing is from the repeated use of pol_z(:,0,kg) and
similar terms. It's counted only once during scalar cost compute and not at
all
if not all of the uses are vectorized.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78233
Bug ID: 78233
Summary: compute_idf fails quick_push size check when compiling
libgcc for Debian armel with qemu-arm-static
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77834
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 7 13:33:37 2016
New Revision: 241905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77834
* alias.c (nonoverlapping_memrefs_p): If o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Nov 7 13:46:31 2016
New Revision: 241906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
Bug ID: 78234
Summary: [7 Regression] LLVM reports
dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow in
gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78233
--- Comment #1 from Pauli ---
Sorry. Error in original report:
gcc (Debian 6.2.0-11) 6.2.0 20161103
with command:
gcc -isystem /usr/local/armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi/include -isystem
/usr/local/armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi/sys-include-g -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
dhowells at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dhowells at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #13)
> Another possibility, at least for handling ilog2(), could be to provide
> __builtin_ilog2(unsigned long x) as an alternative.
>
> Note that the kernel il
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78235
Bug ID: 78235
Summary: [7 Regression] libstdc++ testsuite run.cc ICE in
int_bit_position
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78235
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46006
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So currently we indeed miss the "sinks":
t.i:29:6: note: === vect_analyze_data_ref_accesses ===
t.i:29:6: note: Detected interleaving load MEM[(struct B *)&v] and MEM[(struct
B *)&v + 8B]
t.i:29:6: note: De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71723
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78235
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
20_util/variant/compile.cc produces a similar error:
In file included from
/nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/variant/compile.cc:21:
/tmp/GCC/powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0/libstdc++-v3/includ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71860
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #15 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> (In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #13)
> ...
> Ugh, no. Why not just x && (x & -x) == x ? __builtin_ctz (x) : -1
> (or ctzl or ctzll d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #17 from peien luo ---
(In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #16)
> > The stack size limit in my box is 8M. I have also checked /proc/limits.
>
> So, is increasing stack size help?
> Tsan increases stack consumption. 8MB is not tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #16 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
I guess the following could be used:
int clz_ilog2(unsigned long x)
{
return __builtin_clz(x);
}
which compiles to:
0027 :
27: 0f bd c7bsr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's the commit, the PR number was incorrect.
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Nov 7 15:25:21 2016
New Revision: 241909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Thomas Koen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #17 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #16)
> ...
> 0027 :
> 27: 0f bd c7bsr%edi,%eax
> 2a: 83 f0 1fxor$0x1f,%eax
> 2d: c3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #23 from Dominik Vogt ---
Regarding the ARM patch:
+ {
+if (!IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
+ 1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) - 1))
+ FAIL;
+ }
Isn't this patch too simple? On s390x w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #23)
> Regarding the ARM patch:
>
> + {
> +if (!IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
> +1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78236
Bug ID: 78236
Summary: regex_iterator constructor is incomplete and creates
uninitialized values that may be used
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78236
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Monat ---
Comment on attachment 39982
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39982
Proposed patch to fix the regex_iterator constructor
>diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/regex.h
>b/libstdc++-v3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78237
Bug ID: 78237
Summary: std::timed_mutex::try_lock_for/until affected by
system realtime clock
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #25 from Dominik Vogt ---
I see.
This test verifies that a negative "pos" is indeed rejected:
--
#include
int g;
void foo(int64_t b)
{
if (b >> 65 & 1)
g = b;
}
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Hervé Codina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herve.codina at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77309
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Mon Nov 7 16:59:11 2016
New Revision: 241912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/77309
* combine.c (make_compound_oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77596
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
Author: fw
Date: Mon Nov 7 17:08:40 2016
New Revision: 241914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/78064: Add missing include directive to unwind-c.c
Backpo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78016
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78235
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 66149.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35691
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Mon Nov 7 17:32:17 2016
New Revision: 241915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78227
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 7 17:33:27 2016
New Revision: 241916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78227
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_sse_cmp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77834
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 7 17:35:16 2016
New Revision: 241917
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241917&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77834
* dse.c (dse_step5): Call scan_reads even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #18 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Looks like shadow stack overflow.
Do you use fibers, ucontext, longjmp, exceptions or any other non-obvious
control flow constructs?
Fibers and exceptions are not supported. Longjmp should work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72803
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Confirmed with the attachment. Thanks.
Let's leave this open for now, as the ICE occurs in a different place than
PR77949. It could be another unrelated bug caused by the same patch. Though
it seems like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
Bug ID: 78238
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed, with -fdefault-integer-8
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239
Bug ID: 78239
Summary: ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926,
with -fimplicit-none
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78206
--- Comment #4 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Nov 7 18:33:49 2016
New Revision: 241919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Jack Howarth
PR driver/78206
* incpa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
An invalid example, with uninitialized parameter n :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
character(*), parameter :: z(2) = [character(n) :: 'x', 'y']
end
$ gfortran-7-20161106 -fimplicit-none z2.f90
f951: int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78206
--- Comment #5 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Nov 7 18:35:50 2016
New Revision: 241920
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241920&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Jack Howarth
PR driver/78206
* incpa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78240
Bug ID: 78240
Summary: ICE in match_clist_expr, at fortran/decl.c:728
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78240
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
For completeness, without -fdec :
$ gfortran-7-20161106 z1.f90
z1.f90:2:12:
structure /s/
1
Error: STRUCTURE at (1) is a DEC extension, enable with -fdec-structure
z1.f90:4:6:
en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78206
--- Comment #6 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Nov 7 19:17:04 2016
New Revision: 241926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Jack Howarth
PR driver/78206
* incpa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Nov 7 19:33:27 2016
New Revision: 241927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78226
* expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064
--- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer ---
Author: fw
Date: Mon Nov 7 19:54:05 2016
New Revision: 241929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/78064: Add missing include directive to unwind-c.c
Backpo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78241
Bug ID: 78241
Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code with -funroll-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78241
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-amd64/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-trunk-241681-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78240
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
