https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69860
--- Comment #15 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Confirmed, this ICE is now completely gone on my environment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68439
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68225
--- Comment #7 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
*** Bug 68439 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 68439, which changed state.
Bug 68439 Summary: ICE in alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_subcomponent_assignment,
at fortran/trans-expr.c:6711
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68439
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68225
--- Comment #8 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Addendum :
$ cat zzp.f90
program p
type t
integer :: a
character(:), allocatable :: c
end type
type(t) :: x
x = t(a=1) ; print *, x%a, x%c
x = t(a=2, c=null()) ; p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #13)
> It would be good to have this backported to the 5 branch.
What do you mean? I applied the bug fix to the 5 branch back in July (comment
#7), and the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #15 from Pádraig Brady ---
Actually it is backported to 5.
So it would be good to set the "Target Milestone" to 5.5
so this is obvious from this bug and from the list of bugs fixed in 5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #15)
> So it would be good to set the "Target Milestone" to 5.5
But it was also fixed for 4.9.4, so that's what the target milestone says.
You can't reliably use t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78739
Bug ID: 78739
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:1477
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78740
Bug ID: 78740
Summary: test case powerpc/pr78691-ppc.c fails starting with
its introduction in r243335
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69860
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78741
Bug ID: 78741
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:1534
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69398
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 8 18:34:04 2016
New Revision: 243448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78551
* constexpr.c (extract_string_elt): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 8 18:37:03 2016
New Revision: 243451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78551
* constexpr.c (extract_string_elt): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> But what is specifying multiple declarations of the same function with
> different sets of attributes supposed to mean? Is it supposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78738
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78738
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Following patch fixes the failure:
--cut here--
Index: toplev.c
===
--- toplev.c(revision 243444)
+++ toplev.c(working copy)
@@ -1691,6 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78252
Paul Brannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||curlypaul924 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78733
--- Comment #10 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wilco
Date: Thu Dec 8 19:18:33 2016
New Revision: 243456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This patch fixes an issue in aarch64_classify_address. TImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78733
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 8 19:27:32 2016
New Revision: 243457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78551
* constexpr.c (extract_string_elt): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35302
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54421
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
--- Comment #9 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Frankly speaking, it's difficile. Smells more invalid than valid.
As a side note, I do not have any production code using a contruct
similar to that in comment 0 or in recursive_interface_*.
Still af
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64380
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78738
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78165
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:08:06 2016
New Revision: 243461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/78165 - avoid printing type suffix for constants in %E output
gcc/c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78165
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78671
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:14:42 2016
New Revision: 243462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-08 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/78671
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69859
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:26:11 2016
New Revision: 243463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243463&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-07 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/65173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69064
--- Comment #54 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:26:11 2016
New Revision: 243463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243463&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-07 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/65173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78350
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:26:11 2016
New Revision: 243463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243463&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-07 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/65173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65173
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:26:11 2016
New Revision: 243463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243463&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-07 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/65173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69859
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69064
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65173
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78350
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I cc'ed Paul on this one. Not sure what is going on here, but I will be looking
at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77485
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So my patches for 33562 will detect the partial dead store in "foo", but I
never wrote the bits to narrow partial dead stores.
The difficulty in optimizing this particular case will be rewriting the
CONSTRU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
--- Comment #2 from Damian Rouson ---
Upon further investigation, the workaround mentioned in the final line of the
original report appears not to work. The only workaround I have come up with
is to make the "object" type non-abstract, which the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78742
Bug ID: 78742
Summary: internal compiler error: in int_cst_value, at
tree.c:10782
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am not sure what you are expecting. The module has an empty main program and
nothing allocated to link to.. Since the interface is abstract it creates
nothing until it is used I think.
$ gfc pr78737.f03
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78284
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77531
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Dec 8 23:50:40 2016
New Revision: 243470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/77531 - __attribute__((alloc_size(1,2))) could also warn on multiplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78284
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Dec 8 23:50:40 2016
New Revision: 243470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/77531 - __attribute__((alloc_size(1,2))) could also warn on multiplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77531
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78731
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
The compiler is failing in jump threading as called by dom2. Jeff's 2015-09-30
patch is triggering in dom1, and changing the CFG just enough to prevent the
jump threading bug from triggering. So it isn't a pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77485
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77485
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> So my patches for 33562 will detect the partial
101 - 152 of 152 matches
Mail list logo