[Bug fortran/85686] [8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3385

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85686 Jürgen Reuter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de --- Commen

[Bug fortran/87127] External function not recognised from within an associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127 --- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter --- Paul, would be cool to get back to this one! ;)

[Bug fortran/89890] Memory leak from a function returning a subtype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Wood --- If I add the line "INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: i(:)" inside the definition of 'base', then valgrind reports the lost memory as having been allocated at the second ALLOCATE statement in the function 'new' instead of

[Bug c/89887] the local array data will be laid in different section by different optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887 --- Comment #4 from vfdff --- I check that base on gcc-431, and find the local array will be placed in read only section, i.e. gcc-431 can found the array not be touched with the option -fno-toplevel-reorder. so is it a regression ? ~/GCC/gcc-

[Bug c/89887] the local array data will be laid in different section by different optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to vfdff from comment #4) > I check that base on gcc-431, and find the local array will be placed in > read only section, i.e. gcc-431 can found the array not be touched with the > option -fno-tople

[Bug c/89887] the local array data will be laid in different section by different optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887 --- Comment #6 from vfdff --- Yes, I agree with your point, it is not a bug. I doubt there is something prevent us finding the array not be touched with the option -fno-toplevel-reorder -O2 (based on gcc 7.3), and we may get better performance i

[Bug tree-optimization/70392] [openacc] inconsistent line numbers in uninitialised warnings for if clause

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70392 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/89862] LTO bootstrap fails for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862 --- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kugan Date: Sat Mar 30 04:24:22 2019 New Revision: 270030 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270030&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-29 Kugan Vivekanandarajah Eric Botcazou

[Bug rtl-optimization/89862] LTO bootstrap fails for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862 --- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kugan Date: Sat Mar 30 04:28:51 2019 New Revision: 270031 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270031&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-29 Kugan Vivekanandarajah Backport from mai

<    1   2