l/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
--with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20221014 (experimental) [master r13-3307-g8efc38347a7] (GCC)
[594] %
[594] % gcctk -O1 small.
: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20221014 (experimental) [master r13-3307-g8efc38347a7] (GCC)
[538] %
[538] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[539] %
[539] % gcctk -O1 -fno-tree-ccp small.c
[540] % timeout -s 9 5 ./a.out
Killed
[541] %
[541] % cat small.c
int a, c, d;
unsigned b;
int main() {
int f = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> > Better example:
> >
> > character(kind=4) function f(x) bind(C)
> > character(kind=4), value :: x
> > end
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
There is the possibility to bail out at the very point where things are about
to go wrong, and hope that at resolution time simplification will happen.
Like this for the first part of the test from the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> And something similar for the rest of the test (the binary operators).
Like this:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
index 5e96bb9658e..3f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> > And something similar for the rest of the test (the binary operators).
>
> Like this:
>
It doesn't work unfortun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #20 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #19)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> > > And something similar for the rest of the test (the binary opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> Like this for the first part of the test from the patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> index 9e079e42995..5e96bb9658
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107242
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think that either the C++ frontend needs to reject this code or we need to
> ignore -frounding-math in constant folding this (I think we do that
> elsewhere).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-14
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated
> parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89f20c9ae4641f9b2e87e47f7dab3dc197faa0aa
commit r13-3309-g89f20c9ae4641f9b2e87e47f7dab3dc197faa0aa
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53706
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53706&action=edit
Updated patch
Here's a patch that incorporates comment#17 and comment#20 and adds a testcase
for co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
I do note that we already have bind(C) + kind=4 examples:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR100906.f90
integer, parameter :: c_ucs4_char = 4
and more.
=> Keep permitt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:36:59PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
> I do note that we already have bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's the updated patch. It will accept the code as before if -std= is absent
or -std=GNU. For other -std= flags such as -std=f2018, one will get
% gfcx -c -std=f2018 a.f90
a.f90:1:31:
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107270
Bug ID: 107270
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] return for structure is not
as good as before
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Known to work|
101 - 121 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
