https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71229
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62122
--- Comment #2 from Georg ---
Created attachment 40352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40352&action=edit
changes to example in GNAT RM section on Unrestricted_Access
Since variable Global needs initialization, I have added a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
physiker at toast2 dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||physiker at toast2 dot net
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced test case:
MODULE m
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE :: t
CHARACTER :: c
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE :: write_formatted
GENERIC :: WRITE(FORMATTED) => write_formatted
END TYPE
CONTAINS
SUBRO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78837
Bug ID: 78837
Summary: missing -Walloca-larger-than on a call in a ternary
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
>
> So, is the bug that i?86 needs Q_REGS to be an allocno class always (shall
> ix86_additional_allocno_class_p return true also for Q_REGS? Just for -m32
> or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this should fix it:
Index: libgfortran/io/write.c
===
--- libgfortran/io/write.c (revision 243729)
+++ libgfortran/io/w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, this variant is wrongly rejected:
MODULE m
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE :: t
CHARACTER :: c
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE :: write_formatted
GENERIC :: WRITE(FORMATTED) => write_formatted
END
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78516
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
--- Comment #11 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
I configured with:
../gcc-host/configure --target=i686-unknown-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-
gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --program-prefix=i686-unknown-linux-gnu- --
with-sysroot=/opt/emlix/test/sys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78838
Bug ID: 78838
Summary: msp430 option -mcode-region=either,
-ffunction-sections, and interrupt function attributes
cause incorrect section to be created
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.2.0, 7.0 |
Target Milestone|6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78516
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That LRA patch (on top of the previous patch) allows the glibc build to
complete. Now running gcc/g++/libstdc++ testsuites (I haven't run them
with an unmodified copy of the same GCC versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Rin,
> However, I have a question on this fix. How about the case where
> "-Wa,-mXXX" option is given without "-mcpu=YYY" option specified?
That might or might not work; the user had better know wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
Bug ID: 78839
Summary: DWARF output different between GCC 5 and 6
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
--- Comment #1 from Tom O'Connor ---
Created attachment 40354
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40354&action=edit
debuginfo from a GCC 5.4.0 build of s.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
--- Comment #2 from Tom O'Connor ---
Created attachment 40355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40355&action=edit
debuginfo from a GCC 6.1.0 build of s.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
IIRC bitfield are broken for dwarf2/3 and there is another mechanism for them
for dwarf5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
--- Comment #4 from Tom O'Connor ---
Bitfields seemed to work fine in all GCC prior to 6, FWIW. The same attached
source code when built with other GCCs prior to 6 generates
DW_AT_data_member_location = 0 for all the fields as expected. Only 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tom O'Connor from comment #4)
> Bitfields seemed to work fine in all GCC prior to 6, FWIW. The same
> attached source code when built with other GCCs prior to 6 generates
> DW_AT_data_member_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78839
--- Comment #6 from Tom O'Connor ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Tom O'Connor from comment #4)
> > Bitfields seemed to work fine in all GCC prior to 6, FWIW. The same
> > attached source code when built with other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78826
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC 4.4.7 gives an error:
pod.cc: In function ‘void should_not_compile()’:
pod.cc:6: error: jump to label ‘label’
pod.cc:4: error: from here
pod.cc:5: error: enters scope of non-POD ‘non_pod_in_cpp03 x
20161216. Earlier versions from 4.5.4 to
4.9.4, and clang successfully compiles the code.
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/hJM9b4zWQzTJeBLp
int gvar;
template void tfunc2(int, F) {}
template void tfunc() { // ICE is caused when, in function templates,
const int a = gvar; // a const variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78841
Bug ID: 78841
Summary: [6 regression] optimizer bug (silent bad codegen)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78826
--- Comment #3 from Krzysztof Laskowski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I assume GCC 4.5 stopped diagnosing it due to the revised specification
> which only cares about trivial constructor or trivial destructor, not
> PODness.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78841
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78842
Bug ID: 78842
Summary: "error: declaration of 'bool icase' shadows a
parameter" should be warning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78843
Bug ID: 78843
Summary: error: 'functionname' was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
