https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Well, the change introduced by r241885 is quite complicated.
> It may cause major regressions. I don't recommend backporting it.
Agreed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> > Attaching untested fix.
> > Dominique, could you try it?
>
> Allow for ~2 hours.
Or better Jakub's fix, it looks cleaner.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 9 17:22:02 2016
New Revision: 242009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-09 Steve Kargl
Janus Weil
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78259
--- Comment #3 from foreese at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: foreese
Date: Wed Nov 9 17:31:27 2016
New Revision: 242010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ICE in gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign due to NULL compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #6)
> Created attachment 40007 [details]
> Untested fix.
>
> Attaching untested fix.
> Dominique, could you try it?
The change fixes the bootstrap of current gcc tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 60777, which changed state.
Bug 60777 Summary: [F03] RECURSIVE function rejected in specification expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78259
foreese at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
--- Comment #1 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK I think I assigned the blame to the wrong function, I think it is the
responsibility of 'is_indirect_tailcall_p' to catch this. Though I believe the
last time it is called during the postreload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.1.1 |7.0
--- Comment #7 from Gerhard Stei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77518
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
New backtrace :
$ gfortran-7-20161106 -fcoarray=single z1.f90
z1.f90:5:0:
print *, sizeof(z)
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xc3a64f crash_signal
../../gcc/toplev.c:338
0x78
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
Bug ID: 78277
Summary: ICE in is_anonymous_component, at
fortran/interface.c:450
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78278
Bug ID: 78278
Summary: ICE in gfc_wide_memset, at fortran/scanner.c:153
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78278
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas, for example with "real" :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
real, pointer :: x => null()
data x /null()/
print *, associated(x)
end
$ gfortran-7-20161106 -Wall -fcheck=all z2.f90
$ a.out
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78279
Bug ID: 78279
Summary: ICE in identical_array_ref, at
fortran/dependency.c:104
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78257
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 40008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40008&action=edit
Very lightly tested patch.
The attached (only superficially tested) patch changes fold_bultin_memcmp to
fold the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78279
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78280
Bug ID: 78280
Summary: GCC incorrectly accepts assignment in bitfield width
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Attaching untested fix.
> Dominique, could you try it?
Now breaks with
libtool: compile: /opt/gcc/build_w/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/opt/gcc/build_w/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/opt/gcc/build_w/x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78280
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With
gcc version 7.0.0 20161109 (experimental) [trunk revision 242009] (GCC)
the ICE is gone for all three cases in comment 0. However, it persists for some
of the cases in comment 1 and for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78278
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78262
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 9 19:21:11 2016
New Revision: 242013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78262
* config/i386/i386.md (*3_doublewo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> As mentioned by Harald, the patch in comment 1 works well and is close to
> obvious.
>
> Mikael, are you going to commit this, or do you want me to do it?
Please do, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78281
Bug ID: 78281
Summary: [7 regression] spec2006 test case 471.omnetpp fails to
compile (ICE) starting with r241990
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #8 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
The patch is no longer necessary, because it looks like the problem with
combine.c was fixed on 1 November:
===
r241744 | foreese | 2016-11-01 09:29:51 -0600 (Tue, 01 Nov 2016) | 5 lines
Mark f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78268
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78281
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77685
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78262
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 9 19:44:22 2016
New Revision: 242014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78262
* config/i386/i386.md (*3_doublewo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78268
--- Comment #7 from Bill Seurer ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
> Either r241990 or r241989 causes a new ICE
From a bisect I did it is definitely r241990.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78278
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Well, it's an extension ...
$ gfortran-7-20161106 -std=f95 -c z2.f90 # or -std=f2008
z2.f90:3:17:
data x /null()/
1
Error: GNU Extension: re-initialization of 'x' at (1)
---
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78282
Bug ID: 78282
Summary: [6/7 Regression] Overload resolution failure, in
parameter pack expansion, inside a template class
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78282
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Created attachment 40010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40010&action=edit
The source before the preprocessing step
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 9 20:33:24 2016
New Revision: 242020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-09 Mikael Morin
Janus Weil
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78262
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 9 20:41:17 2016
New Revision: 242022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78262
* config/i386/i386.md (*3_doublewo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78283
Bug ID: 78283
Summary: -Wc++1z-compat warning is sticky
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78262
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78276
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78283
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40011&action=edit
gcc7-pr78283.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78283
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 40011 [details]
> gcc7-pr78283.patch
>
> Untested fix.
OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> > Attaching untested fix.
> > Dominique, could you try it?
>
> Now breaks with
[...]
> In file included from /usr/include/Availability.h:180:0,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61450
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> If it helps, I can take care of the packaging.
PING!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78236
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78284
Bug ID: 78284
Summary: warn on malloc with very large arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78284
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77531
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77414
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78283
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 9 22:56:35 2016
New Revision: 242026
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242026&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78283
* mangle.c (start_mangling): Reset G.need_cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78285
Bug ID: 78285
Summary: error on duplicate switch label where a note should be
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78243
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #62 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Both parts of the patch are now posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00523.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00830.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78268
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
101 - 159 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
