https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82647
Bug ID: 82647
Summary: std::tuple_size_v is missing from and
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82647
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>If I additionally include , which should be unnecessary, this compiles.
I don't have the final C++17 spec but the draft (dated March 21, 2017, doc
N4659) says tuple_size_v is defined in tuple and no other h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82611
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> Let's close this one.
Please don't. I still see the wrong output with gfortran 7.2.
Dominique, did you consider the fact that two separate files are r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79994
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique, did you consider the fact that two separate files are required
> to trigger the bug?
With the original code
% gfortran-fsf-4.8 -c -std=f2003 ModA.f03
% gfortran-fsf-4.8 -c -std=f2003 Mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82611
--- Comment #2 from James Tanner ---
In that case it seems as though the standard has overlooked this scenario, as
there is no way to achieve this without incurring a warning message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82587
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 21 09:02:17 2017
New Revision: 253970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82586
* decl.c (gfc_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 21 09:02:17 2017
New Revision: 253970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82586
* decl.c (gfc_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 21 09:02:17 2017
New Revision: 253970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82586
* decl.c (gfc_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi. As you can see, the patch itself seems simple, but a while ago I noticed
that quite a few testcases would need adjusting and that made me a little
nervous. In particular those testcases (both C and C++) w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82586, which changed state.
Bug 82586 Summary: [PDT] ICE: write_symbol(): bad module symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42428&action=edit
gcc8-pr82628.patch
Untested patch. From the above hack, I'm afraid I have no idea how to express
the SF+OF se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82648
Bug ID: 82648
Summary: libiberty/regex.c:2364]: pointless test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82647
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79994
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82587, which changed state.
Bug 82587 Summary: [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82587
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Fixed on 8-branch.
Thank you for working on this and getting in these problem reports.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82587
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82589, which changed state.
Bug 82589 Summary: [PDT] ICE in gfc_get_pdt_instance, at fortran/decl.c:3278
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28758
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32840
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31840
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82613
--- Comment #1 from fabian.loeschner at live dot de ---
By the way: it compiles fine with Clang trunk and in Visual Studio 2017 (MSVC
19.11)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
We could do something like
program boom
implicit none
interface
subroutine mywait() bind(c)
end subroutine mywait
end interface
integer :: i,j
character(len=256)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82649
Bug ID: 82649
Summary: (PDT) Invalid error for assumed parameters in ALLOCATE
typespec
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82649
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82650
Bug ID: 82650
Summary: -fdump-go-spec Segmentation fault on enums
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I take the tarball from comment 0, unpack it, run "make" and then "./test",
I get:
gA%next(): 0
gA%next(): 0
gA%next(): 0
gAp%next(): 2
gAp%next():
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Created attachment 42428 [details]
> gcc8-pr82628.patch
>
> Untested patch. From the above hack, I'm afraid I have no idea how to
> express the SF+OF setting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> And with r241439, the test fails.
>
> Andre, any ideas?
This is sufficiently similar to PR82312 that I applied the patch for it to
7-branch (which I had to do a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
Hunter L. Allen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hunter at openrobotics dot org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
The chunk of offending code:
val_p=>NULL(); cep=>NULL()
cep=>this%element(offset,errc)
if(errc.eq.GFC_SUCCESS.and.associated(cep)) then
val_p=>cep%get_value(errc)
is trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82651
Bug ID: 82651
Summary: After -r 253879 GCC 8.0 can't build cross compiler for
mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78808
--- Comment #14 from Steven Noonan ---
"testcase.i" can be reduced a lot (thanks creduce!). Literally just this:
---
__attribute__((target_clones("arch=sandybridge", "default"))) static _saxpy() {
#pragma omp parallel
;
}
saxpy() {}
---
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29600
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29600
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82312
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 21 17:09:43 2017
New Revision: 253976
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253976&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82312
* resolve.c (gfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
Frank Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu at pureftpd dot org
--- Comment #12 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > Let's close this one.
>
> Please don't. I still see the wrong output with gfortran 7.2.
>
> Dominique, did you consider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jdhughes at usgs dot gov
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81898
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82652
Bug ID: 82652
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on strncpy with
-fcheck-pointer-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42428|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82653
Bug ID: 82653
Summary: Parameters assigned with functions (instead of
literals) cannot be used in other modules
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82652
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem is that there are no BUILT_IN_{STPNCPY,STRNCAT,STRNCPY}_CHKP macros
so these built-ins, even though their built-in function codes exist, are
handled just like ordinary functions. To get the benefi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82654
Bug ID: 82654
Summary: i386_cfun_abi() not defined at point of use
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tprince at intelretiree dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82654
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82655
Bug ID: 82655
Summary: missing -Walloc-size-larget-than with
-fcheck-pointer-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82656
Bug ID: 82656
Summary: memset buffer overflow not detected after realloc with
-fcheck-pointer-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: maj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42430|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54027
Tristan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||info at learnthreejs dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69725
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82653
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
61 matches
Mail list logo
