https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you want a testcase for aarch64, e.g.
template
struct alignas (16) A { char p[16]; };
A<0> v;
template
struct B
{
typedef A T;
int i, j, k, l;
};
int
foo (int a, B<0> b)
{
return a + b.i;
}
int
ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #1 from Stefano Zaghi ---
I forget to say that I test this issue with GNU gfortran gcc version 6.3.1
20170306 and gcc version 7.0.0 20161206 (experimental).
My best regards.
Dear all,
I faced with a possible serious bug: polymorphic functions (necessary
to define polymorphic operators in OOP programs) generate memory leaks
making OOP program not feasible.
I opened a bug report (80477) here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
I report the details also b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80425
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> So I don't know how to fix it in IRA or in LRA. I am pretty sure the
> old RA and reload would have had the same problem.
>
> Probably the issue should be fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, with the above plus:
#include
int
fn1 (int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h, int i, int j, int
k, int l, int m, B<0> n, ...)
{
va_list ap;
va_start (ap, n);
int x = va_arg (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80345
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:03:54 2017
New Revision: 247046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80426
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:08:03 2017
New Revision: 247047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80426
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80476
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80237
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:17:23 2017
New Revision: 247049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80237
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:37:13 2017
New Revision: 247050
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247050&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-04-19 Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66278
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:50:19 2017
New Revision: 247051
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247051&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test-case (PR tree-optimization/66278).
2017-04-21 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80468
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:51:53 2017
New Revision: 247052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/80468
* c-decl.c (finish_declspecs) : If int_n_idx is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66278
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, the wording e.g. i386 backend has is:
inform (input_location,
"the ABI of passing structure with complex float"
" member has changed in GCC 4.4"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #53 from Mark Wielaard ---
Author: mark
Date: Fri Apr 21 09:02:03 2017
New Revision: 247056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libiberty: Limit demangler maximum d_print_comp recursion call depth.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #12 from James Greenhalgh ---
So while there's nothing buggy about the if-conversion which causes the
performance issue, it does show an interesting missed optimization that ifcvt
can't handle.
We make the transform through find_if_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE on |[7 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80476
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80476
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Initializing the variable to zero fixes the issue. Should I install that to
trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Senkevich ---
(In reply to amker from comment #13)
> We should create another PR for additional copy instructions after my patch
> and close this one. IMHO they are two different issues.
I agree, currently there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68390
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Fri Apr 21 09:23:59 2017
New Revision: 247057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR68390 Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68390
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
inform, beyond being consistent with what i386 and rs6000 backends do here, has
the advantage that it doesn't break the build even with -Werror, generally
there is nothing wrong on the code we want to inform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Bug ID: 80479
Summary: endless stream of valgrind errors when using trunk
build with trunk on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80409
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, pascal_cuoq at hotmail dot com wrote:
> Since the open-source world divides the C compilation platform described by
> the
> C standard into C compilers (Clang, GCC) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Senkevich from comment #16)
> (In reply to amker from comment #13)
> > We should create another PR for additional copy instructions after my patch
> > and close this one. IMHO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ppc64le
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips-o32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80232
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I've adjusted the generic cost model for gather/scatter for GCC 8 (doesn't help
here).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80232
Bug 80232 depends on bug 57796, which changed state.
Bug 57796 Summary: AVX2 gather vectorization: code bloat and reduction of
performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57796
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57796
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Hmm, all error locations involve calls to strcmp().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79765
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Looks more like a missing valgrind suppression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
The memcmp is emitted directly by isntructions, it would need someone who can
verify that it's not touching the uninitialized bytes of str{1,2} (bytes 8-15).
After calling memset for these bytes, the error is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #14 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #11)
> I've just retested gcc7 on both ARM platforms.
>
> AArch64 gets a 3% improvement now, while ARMv7 reproduces the issue, just as
> before. I'm compiling/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #62 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #61)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #60)
> > r242780 works.
> >
> > With both r243586 and r244391, plus the patch for r245191
> > applied, I got numerous f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
Bug ID: 80480
Summary: The compiler gets killed by an internal error when
compiling ZNC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78869
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|78687 |80293
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
--- Comment #2 from Abel Romero ---
I commit that bug to improve g++ because I solved this issue by installing
version 4.7 and linking to it for the system to be able to access it by this
way:
apt-get install g++-4.7 (as root)
ln -fs /usr/bin/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80481
Bug ID: 80481
Summary: Unoptimal additional copy instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78847
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 21 12:09:20 2017
New Revision: 247061
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247061&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78847
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Senkevich ---
Created pr80481.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #63 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #62)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #61)
> > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #60)
> > > r242780 works.
> > >
> > > With both r243586 and r244391, p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
Abel Romero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #15 from PeteVine ---
I don't have a cross-compiler built/installed.
If you're positive the bug doesn't reproduce on your end (targeting generic or
A5 codegen), then maybe it's about some interaction between gcc instrumentation
and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #2 from Stefano Zaghi ---
A very kind and great Fortraner (Chris MacMackin) has just let me know that a
very similar (or really the same) bug has been already reported (60913) here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
(In reply to Abel Romero from comment #3)
> The OOM killer doesn't show any killing to process g++ .
That just means that the kernel log overflowed. Given the multitude of OOM
messages your system is defin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #64 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #63)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #62)
> > I am currently at a loss how to proceed.
>
> Darn Did you apply the patch from PR79344?
Yes.
What I get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
Bug ID: 80482
Summary: [7 Regression] vec_mul produces compilation error if 1
of its parms is const or volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #65 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #64)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #63)
> > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #62)
>
> > > I am currently at a loss how to proceed.
> >
> > Darn...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #16 from PeteVine ---
Also, I'd like to repeat the fact using -mcpu=cortex-a7 fixes the issue (no
library calls present).
Incidentally, having run that A7 profiled binary on a Cortex-A53, I'm seeing a
10% hit compared to a vanilla A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
Abel Romero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80480
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #17 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #16)
> Also, I'd like to repeat the fact using -mcpu=cortex-a7 fixes the issue (no
> library calls present).
Cortex-A7 has hardware division so it doesn't emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #22 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> BTW, the wording e.g. i386 backend has is:
> inform (input_location,
> "the ABI of passing structure with complex flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80316
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Apr 21 14:49:19 2017
New Revision: 247064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80316 make promise::set_value throw no_state error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
--- Comment #10 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, so I'm the culprit who added the strncmp/strcmp inline expansion.
If both strings have alignment > 8 we cannot inadvertently cross a page
boundary doing 8B loads. For any argument that has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80179
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 21 19:26:54 2017
New Revision: 247067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80179 - ICE with initialized flexible array member.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
Bug ID: 80484
Summary: Three syntax errors involving derived-type I/O
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Babokin ---
One more. GCC r247062.
> cat f.cpp
unsigned long int ll;
int foo() {
return (2036854775807 >> ll & char(207648476159223) | 502810590243120797UL)
<< 0;
}
> g++ -fsanitize=undefined -O0 -c f.cpp
f.cpp: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #18 from PeteVine ---
> Well that sounds like the same issue.
> Note -fprofile-generate simple inserts counters in the generated code. In
> fact the generated code is practically identical between Cortex-A5 and
> Cortex-A7.
As lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80485
Bug ID: 80485
Summary: rejects-valid: constexpr static_cast of
pointer-to-member-function to bool
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Apr 21 20:47:12 2017
New Revision: 247069
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247069&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-21 Janus Weil
PR fortran/80392
* tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486
Bug ID: 80486
Summary: spurious -Walloc-size-larger-than and
-Wstringop-overflow in dominance.c during
profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Apr 21 21:11:22 2017
New Revision: 247070
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247070&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-21 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80221
--- Comment #16 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41243&action=edit
tentative patch implementing dg-save-linenr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see the problem. The compiler is enforcing "the parameter types must match"
too tightly. It should be checking the unqualified types (sans const/volatile)
instead of the types directly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77671
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00968.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
--- Comment #26 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Apr 21 21:37:16 2017
New Revision: 247071
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247071&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-21 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80487
Bug ID: 80487
Summary: redundant memset/memcpy/strcpy calls not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80488
Bug ID: 80488
Summary: Erroneous error "lambda-expression in template
argument"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walt Brainerd from comment #0)
> Windows 10, gcc 7.0.1 20170416
>
> If the commented versions of the USE or WRITE statements
> are used, the program works fine.
>
> The function B converts wage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
As an example of what I just said:
$ gfc pr80484.f03
f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_match_use, at fortran/module.c:689
With no module defined. This is an unrelated bug I just stumbled on... with
you
92 matches
Mail list logo
