https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88376
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88378
Bug ID: 88378
Summary: notes for template deduction errors mention "[with U =
U]"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45166
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45166&action=edit
gcc9-pr88367.patch
Possible untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #4)
> Thanks for working on these issues.
Gerhard,
Can you migrate z2.f90 to its own PR? It is going to
require much more effort to fix. My first attempt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88359
--- Comment #6 from Geert linders ---
Hi Pinskia,
Which minimum version of avr-gcc is suitable?
Cheers - Geert
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:21
To: geert.lind...@hotmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88359
--- Comment #7 from Geert linders ---
Hi Pinskia,
Which minimum version of avr-gcc is suitable?
Cheers - Geert
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:21
To: geert.lind...@hotmail.com
Subject: [Bug target/88359
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85569
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||proski at gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You have
/* { dg-error "alignment of 's' is greater" "" { target pdp11*-*-* } } */
(the "" was added in r265741, the source tree I looked at wasn't up-to-date).
dg.exp says this is
# dg-error regexp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87350
Bernhard Kaindl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.kaindl@thalesgroup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #11 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, I had forgotten.
Seurer, could you update to r265741 or later and check if that cures the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88379
Bug ID: 88379
Summary: ICE in resolve_assoc_var, at fortran/resolve.c:8750
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
--- Comment #6 from G. Steinmetz ---
Sure, this is now pr88379.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87350
--- Comment #6 from Bernhard Kaindl ---
Created attachment 45167
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45167&action=edit
Safe fix: Before copying work, check if the vectors have been allocated. If
not, input wasn't valid.
Fixes CV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
petschy at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petschy at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88064
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88380
Bug ID: 88380
Summary: Sequence of not-explicitly initialised, initialised,
variable length generates no initialiser
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The exception specification seems to be processed too early, before the other
class members are in scope. This slight variation of comment 5 still fails on
trunk:
struct S {
void g() noexcept(noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88362
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> so that we get consistent behavior for reference members. __alignof__ should
> return the corresponding alignment. For example, in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88364
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Probably easiest to omit the clobber if there is a reference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88381
Bug ID: 88381
Summary: __builtin_thread_pointer missing documentation,
defined as implicit_p
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88382
Bug ID: 88382
Summary: undocumented GNU C extension: C++ raw string literals
permitted in GNU C
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88362
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I would think for the same reason why attribute aligned applies to the
reference and not to the type it refers to. If it makes sense for the
following to declare an overaligned reference to an ordinary int ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Bug ID: 88383
Summary: ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute(r, aligned(N))) on
an overaligned reference r
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 5 23:10:08 2018
New Revision: 266833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/87028
* calls.c (get_attr_nonstring_decl): Avoid setti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Dec 6 00:40:08 2018
New Revision: 266839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85770
* gcc.target/i386/pr85770.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88384
Bug ID: 88384
Summary: __alignof__ of an rvalue is different between C and
C++
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
gcc 20181205 gets an ICE compiling this code. (8.2.1 compiles it without
error.)
thanks,
sss
--
template
struct xtest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|ICE calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86973
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86497
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||no...@turm-lahnstein.de
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86121
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all, something
> different?
AFAICS they only occur with optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88352
--- Comment #2 from Jay ---
The linked bug was amd64. This is x86.
I'm not sure they are the same. Maybe.
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
