[Bug fortran/91552] ICE with valid array constructor

2019-09-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91552 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Sep 2 16:46:54 2019 New Revision: 275322 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275322&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-02 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91552

[Bug target/91604] [10 Regression] ICE in extract_insn at recog.c:2310 since r272323

2019-09-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91604 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/91552] ICE with valid array constructor

2019-09-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91552 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Sep 2 17:16:05 2019 New Revision: 275323 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275323&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-02 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91552

[Bug fortran/91552] ICE with valid array constructor

2019-09-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91552 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug c/53075] -Werror=pedantic should be equivalent to -pedantic-errors

2019-09-02 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53075 --- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Kamlesh Kumar from comment #4) > This patch resolves this. No, it doesn't. As the documentation says: -pedantic-errors is not equivalent to @option{-Werror=pedantic}, since there are erro

[Bug fortran/91640] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

2019-09-02 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 Bug ID: 91640 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr) Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91641] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_is_contiguous_expr, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:2857

2019-09-02 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91641 Bug ID: 91641 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_is_contiguous_expr, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:2857 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug fortran/91642] New: ICE: Bad IO basetype (transfer_expr, at fortran/trans-io.c:2507)

2019-09-02 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91642 Bug ID: 91642 Summary: ICE: Bad IO basetype (transfer_expr, at fortran/trans-io.c:2507) Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91643] New: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at fortran/trans-array.c:1265

2019-09-02 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91643 Bug ID: 91643 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at fortran/trans-array.c:1265 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug fortran/91556] Problems with better interface checking

2019-09-02 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #22) > A problem with such code is that type violations like that are likely to > cause > actual wrong code issues because much of the aliasing analysis is

[Bug fortran/91641] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_is_contiguous_expr, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:2857

2019-09-02 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91641 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91641] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_is_contiguous_expr, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:2857

2019-09-02 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91641 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/91589] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_component_ref, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2447

2019-09-02 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91589 --- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Mon Sep 2 19:54:02 2019 New Revision: 275324 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275324&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-02 Paul Thomas PR fortran/91589 * primary.c (gfc

[Bug target/91494] Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to 9.0

2019-09-02 Thread mc_george123 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91494 --- Comment #1 from George Fan --- Please help.

[Bug middle-end/91433] Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to 9.0

2019-09-02 Thread mc_george123 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91433 --- Comment #3 from George Fan --- Pls help.

[Bug fortran/91556] Problems with better interface checking

2019-09-02 Thread sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 --- Comment #24 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:51:23PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 > > --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Thomas Koe

[Bug middle-end/91433] Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to 9.0

2019-09-02 Thread crazylht at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91433 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 f

[Bug fortran/91641] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_is_contiguous_expr, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:2857

2019-09-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91641 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have a patch.

[Bug debug/86549] [meta-bug] -flto -g0 vs. -g issues

2019-09-02 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86549 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

<    1   2