https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84538
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84540
Bug ID: 84540
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with alignas in variadic
template
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84523
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83692
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sat Feb 24 13:10:44 2018
New Revision: 257961
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257961&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83692
* constexpr.c (maybe_constant_init_1): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83692
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84538
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84523
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Comparing the outputs of -fDump-tree-original for r257064 and r257065 shows:
--- pr84523.f90.003t.original_652018-02-24 14:45:17.0 +0100
+++ pr84523.f90.003t.original_642018-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84537
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84537
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think just
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
@@ -5541,6 +5541,10 @@ bool
suggest_alternative_in_explicit_scope (location_t location, tree name,
tree scope)
{
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84530
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84530
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 43494
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43494&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #6 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
Tried to apply this patch on top of current trunk. During my build process, I
bootstrap a complete Linux/binutils/glibc/gcc toolchain following the Linux
From Scratch guidelines.
Without the patch, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84541
Bug ID: 84541
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with auto in function parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84143
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch fixes the first part of the problem so the write will ignore the kind
and len parameters.
The component n is simply not being initialized at all. I am searching code for
where this ought to happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the early heads up! Can you please attach the translation unit for
the kernel file that GCC faults on?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
Bug ID: 84542
Summary: missing -Wdeprecated-declarations on a redeclared
function template
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #8 from Romain Geissler ---
I am currently testing a little variant of your patch (check that "nextbb" if
not NULL before trying to use it):
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84538
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Benson ---
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the select type workaround suggestion - I'll do that for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84543
Bug ID: 84543
Summary: undefined reference to __copy_INTEGER_4_.3788
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51652
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #9 from Romain Geissler ---
Ok I was able to strip down the ICE to this very simple reproducer:
<
static char keyword[4];
static void f (void) { strncpy(keyword, "if ", 4); }
EOF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84543
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84509
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30792
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Feb 24 17:22:10 2018
New Revision: 257962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-24 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/30792
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #0)
> According to Intel
> (https://software.intel.com/sites/landingpage/IntrinsicsGuide), there are no
> alignment requirements for _mm_load_sd, _mm_store_sd and _mm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84432
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30792
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Feb 24 17:51:09 2018
New Revision: 257963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-24 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/30792
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84432
--- Comment #5 from Neil Carlson ---
No, both of those are valid. The constraint is on component initialization, and
type parameters are *not* components. So something like this would be invalid
by F08:C458
type t(a)
integer, len :: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84432
--- Comment #6 from Neil Carlson ---
... and this would also be invalid
type t(a)
integer, len :: a = 3
character(len=a) :: c = 'foo'
end type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84523
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks, I can reproduce it with that test case. Checking for the basic block
being null fixes the SEGV for me. Let me retest this and post an update for
review.
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84539
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84519
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84539
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed, present since at least r245582.
Forgot to say that the ICE requires a compiler configured with
--enable-checking=yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84431
--- Comment #6 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Ruslan Nikolaev from comment #4)
> > Thanks! I was wondering if the patch also fixes the same thing for x86-64
> > (i.e., -m64); in which case we wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30792
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Feb 24 20:24:27 2018
New Revision: 257964
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257964&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-24 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/30792
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 30792, which changed state.
Bug 30792 Summary: DATA implied-do substring allowed with -std=f95/f2003
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30792
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30792
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84544
Bug ID: 84544
Summary: Missing warning when returning a reference to internal
variable inside a lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84540
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84545
Bug ID: 84545
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/debug/pr44182.C -gdwarf-2 -O2 (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84546
Bug ID: 84546
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Bad sourced allocation of CLASS(*)
with source with CLASS(*) component
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Patched to mailing list.
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-01/msg00192.html which seems to
have never been applied. What is the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69420
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 12:13:09AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> > Patched to mailing list.
>
> Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-01/msg00192.html which seems to
> have never been applie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84530
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43494|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
There's also a PyCFunctionWithoutArgs that takes just one parameter so it'll
have to be one arg onwards but I don't know the impact on it's API. I'm going
to test that when I get back home tonight and pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84547
Bug ID: 84547
Summary: Suboptimal code for masked shifts (ARM64)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
52 matches
Mail list logo
