https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Juergen,
Noted - as it happens, I have an hour or so right now :-)
Cheers
Paul
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 23:08, juergen.reuter at desy dot de
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 46060
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46060&action=edit
patch for pr89255
I posted this to gcc-patches in three parts, it would be good if you can test
it on solaris bef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at fluidgravity dot
co.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85686
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
> Any update on this one, that should possibly be not so hard to fix I'd guess.
A combination of character, associate, and arrays?
How many hoenest's nests do you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89840
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This has been fixed between revisions r264810 (2018-10-03, wrong code)
and r264951 (2018-10-09, OK) and the fix has not been back ported
to the GCC8 branch).
I did not find any obvious commit in thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89841
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
A patch has been posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00142.html
and approved at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00143.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70392
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Look at the dumps. Probably the C++ FE or the optimisers do not create an
expression with a valid location for bool. It is not an issue with
Wuninitialized.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, 02:50 egallager at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80563
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Mar 30 13:23:38 2019
New Revision: 270032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78865
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89841
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
It's on its way to being committed this afternoon :-)
Cheers
Paul
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 12:41, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=898
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Mar 30 13:41:10 2019
New Revision: 270034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/89866
* gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88242
--- Comment #1 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ran through creduce:
template struct b { static constexpr int c = a; };
template struct d {};
template struct j;
template struct j> : b {};
template constexpr long h = j::c;
template struct n :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Mar 30 13:45:47 2019
New Revision: 270035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/89866
* gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 89866, which changed state.
Bug 89866 Summary: [8 Regression] [F08] wrong-code problem with POINTER,
INTENT(IN) argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89646
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68815
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891
Bug ID: 89891
Summary: [meta-bug] Accessing memory in rejected statements or
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64118
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87946
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89744
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 30 15:23:37 2019
New Revision: 270036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89744 - ICE with specialization of member class template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60241
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 30 15:23:37 2019
New Revision: 270036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89744 - ICE with specialization of member class template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89841
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 30 15:39:00 2019
New Revision: 270037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-30 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/89841
* trans-expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89842
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 30 15:39:00 2019
New Revision: 270037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-30 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/89841
* trans-expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89842
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89841
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54852
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80174
Bug 80174 depends on bug 54852, which changed state.
Bug 54852 Summary: Bogus(?) warnings when compiling gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars.f90
gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars_driver.c with -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54852
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] FAIL:|[7/8 Regression] FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89894
Bug ID: 89894
Summary: poor error message when redefining a function
overloaded on a non-type specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89894
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89894
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, it's not specific to non-type specializations or even templates. The
same problem happens with ordinary types. Non-type template specializations
just exacerbate it.
$ cat z.C && gcc -c -Wall z.C
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #32 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Historically, a local register asm variable *does* live in that variable
for its entire scope. This stopped working correctly, even with the many
caveats there were for it, and many years ago the manua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org|jason at gcc dot
gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #25)
> Fixed on trunk so far.
Yes, OK to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #1 from 康 珊 ---
Created attachment 46061
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46061&action=edit
octane benchmark part1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #2 from 康 珊 ---
Created attachment 46062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46062&action=edit
octane benchmark part2
44 matches
Mail list logo
