https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92928
Bug ID: 92928
Summary: When address and UB sanitizer are combined, sanitizing
boost serialization code crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Dec 13 08:31:42 2019
New Revision: 279338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add C testcases for PR 86659
testsuite/ChangeLog:
2019-12-13 Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I have a C testcase which I will be adding by the end of the week.
Done:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00924.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92908
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 13 10:12:55 2019
New Revision: 279369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92908
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_relational_oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92904
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47484
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47484&action=edit
123.c: C test case.
Confirmed with the attached test case compiler with
$ avr-gcc -mmcu=atmega128 123.c -fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92919
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
valgrind reports this too:
==31127== Invalid read of size 1
==31127==at 0x2594AFA: wide_str_to_charconst (charset.c:1980)
==31127==by 0x2594AFA: cpp_interpret_charconst(cpp_reader*, cpp_token
const*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47485
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47485&action=edit
123f.c: C test case with address space __flash.
...and the code is also wrong with address spaces like __fla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Increasing number of entries does not seem to help:
Indirect call counterall: 140960933, values: [429856732:-1], [484692916:1218],
[1203869319:12593], [245854587:8179], [1829590552:52], [401302964:7072],
[83957
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
Bug ID: 92929
Summary: Fortran OpenACC/OpenMP 'target' 'exit data'/'update'
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich ---
The following:
program test
write(*, "(e0.10e2)") 0.00314_4
end
results in error:
At line 2 of file test-f2018.f90 (unit = 6, file = 'stdout')
Fortran runtime error: Period required in format
(e0.10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |middle-end
Summary|Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92920
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92928
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even more reduced (without headers):
struct Base
{
virtual ~Base() = default;
virtual bool foo() noexcept = 0;
};
struct Derived : public Base
{
Derived() noexcept {};
bool foo() noexcept override {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86416
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> > 2. CHARACTER default mapping not correct according to the specs.
> See PR 92920.
Missed a fineprint: OpenMP 4.5 + 5.0: "1.2.6 Data Terminology" has
"scalar var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to myself from comment #1)
> if (OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_KIND (c) == GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_POINTER
> || (OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_KIND (c)
> == GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_REFERENCE))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to myself from comment #1)
> /* For target {,enter ,exit }data only the array slice is
>mapped, but not the pointer to it. */
Some handling for OpenACC 'data' got added in r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> Would it work to include them at the end of BINFO_VIRTUALS but omit them
> in build_vtbl_initializer?
With my very limited understanding, I thought that for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Henlich ---
Just a minor issue: I think that the sense of the message arguments in calls to
gfc_notify_std() should be inverted - they should describe the feature as
supported in the correct standard, and not as an err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #13)
As reference, see this comment:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081#c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #13)
As reference, see this comment:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081#c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47487&action=edit
pr92357.C
Further reduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92930
Bug ID: 92930
Summary: GCC incorrectly optimizes away __builtin_apply() calls
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Looking into how getter variable is determined:
vp_35 is function parameter
_124 = MEM[(const struct Value *)vp_35(D)].asBits_;
_125 = _124 ^ 18446181123756130304;
_126 = (struct JSObject *) _125
...
_50 = MEM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92931
Bug ID: 92931
Summary: gfortran compiler errors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86416
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83464
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Is this still an issue with current trunk?
Can you please check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83464
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
> Is this still an issue with current trunk?
> Can you please check?
I have to try. I'll run a testbuild. Currently the package has the following
workaroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92931
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92931
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92932
Bug ID: 92932
Summary: Optimizers generate wrong code due to aggressive data
optimization.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92932
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
The problem is that there isn't even a target hook to disallow such
optimizations, files as as PR92932.
In a respective hook, at least the attributes and address spaces of either
object must be available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll note that GCC doesn't yet implement the OpenMP 5.0 automatic declare
target for functions with definitions called from declare target functions or
target regions. I've tried to do that this summer, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91165
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Slightly further reduced #c3:
> template constexpr T bar (T c) { return c; }
> template struct S {
> T f;
> U g;
> constexpr S (T c, U h) : f(c), g(h) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47489&action=edit
gcc10-implicit-declare-target-to.patch
For reference, here is the implicit declare target to discovery, but don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
Witold Markowski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||witold.a.markowski at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE in determine_versionability is on:
3844if (node->has_gimple_body_p ()
3845&& opt_for_fn (node->decl, flag_ipa_cp)
3846&& opt_for_fn (node->decl, optimize))
3847
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92933
Bug ID: 92933
Summary: [coroutines] compiler ICE compiling coroutine with
try/catch
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
Bug ID: 92934
Summary: mips jump to invalid address
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
--- Comment #1 from darksectordds ---
Created attachment 47492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47492&action=edit
example
Added example file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
--- Comment #2 from darksectordds ---
Created attachment 47493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47493&action=edit
allegrex support
Added path for allegrex support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The gcc patch that is attached has incorrect definition for allegrex_madd and
allegrex_msub. It uses match_dup when it should really be using match_operand
and the constraint of "0".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92933
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
thanks,
oddly there's a test case in the test-suite that does something similar, I
shall have to investigate what's different in the codegen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90001
--- Comment #6 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Author: zhroma
Date: Fri Dec 13 17:02:53 2019
New Revision: 279375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
modulo-sched: speed up DDG analysis (PR90001)
PR rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Instead of the #c6 patch, perhaps we want:
--- gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c.jj 2019-12-05 14:02:20.559570378 +0100
+++ gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c 2019-12-13 18:01:08.344828332 +0100
@@ -4364,24 +4364,24 @@ static void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92934
--- Comment #6 from darksectordds ---
That was my patch. I've only recently started to study it all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90001
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
There are no backporting pending, I believe? If so, should this PR be closed
now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the other ICE, I'm still lost, I don't see similar bug to the above in
other functions that write summaries.
In output_symtab I see that all cgraph_nodes are streamed out, just those that
fail lto_sym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
--- Comment #7 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Author: zhroma
Date: Fri Dec 13 17:33:38 2019
New Revision: 279377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
modulo-sched: fix branch rescheduling issue (PR92591)
PR rtl-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90001
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92930
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47494
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47494&action=edit
gcc10-pr92930.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92932
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dup of at least PR92294 and PR54666; I thought there was a much older bug
dealing with the alias attribute but I can't seem to find it right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsch at belunktum dot dk
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #18 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
Bug ID: 92935
Summary: typeof() on an atomic type doesn't always return the
corresponding unqualified type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:20:24PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92933
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Dec 13 21:40:59 2019
New Revision: 279385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c++-coroutines - Fix PR 92933.
This fixes an omission in handling registrat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92933
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using the LEN() intrinsic works fine, as the dump-tree shows for
implicit none
type t
character :: c = "a"
end type t
type(t), parameter :: x = t()
integer, parameter :: l = x%c%len
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92936
Bug ID: 92936
Summary: missing warning on a past-the-end store to a PHI
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92881
--- Comment #1 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Fri Dec 13 23:14:15 2019
New Revision: 279388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix potential race condition in OpenACC "exit data" operations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92937
Bug ID: 92937
Summary: missing warning on a store with index >= malloc size
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
Bug ID: 92938
Summary: constprop function is assigned to a different section
than the original function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
--- Comment #1 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue does not reproduce with the current gcc trunk after SVN revision
277054 (generalized IPA predicate on parameter), but it doesn't look like this
change fixes the root cause, it just resu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is a GCC bug.
The reasoning is bitmap_replace is not marked as being in the section .init_*
at all. GCC decides to clone it for constant-prop. Really any function which
is marked as __gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92939
Bug ID: 92939
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on negative index from the
end of array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92940
Bug ID: 92940
Summary: incorrect offset and size in -Wstringop-overflow for
out-of-bounds store into VLA and two offset ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91582
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Dec 14 00:52:46 2019
New Revision: 279392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91582 - missing heap overflow detection for strcpy
PR middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92868
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Dec 14 00:52:46 2019
New Revision: 279392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91582 - missing heap overflow detection for strcpy
PR middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92868
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91582
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 91582, which changed state.
Bug 91582 Summary: missing heap overflow detection for strcpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91582
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49111
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks for feedback. Hopefully I can get to it next day or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49111
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #13)
> For example:
>
> gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2018, "positive width required at %L",
> &format_locus)
>
> should read
> gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2018, "zero wid
96 matches
Mail list logo
