||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2012-11-25
18:29:00 UTC ---
I think this can be counted as fixed with the addition
of -fcheck=do and the recent fixes for INTENT(OUT) and
INTENT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51589
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55593
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-06
22:02:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> From frontend-passes.c's doloop_code
>
> case EXEC_CALL:
> f = co->symtree->n.sym->formal;
>
> I think one should use in this case
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55593
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-09
09:15:42 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Dec 9 09:15:36 2012
New Revision: 194329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194329
Log:
2012-12-09 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55593
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-14
23:07:34 UTC ---
This seems to do the trick.
Index: unix.c
===
--- unix.c (Revision 194507)
+++ unix.c (Arbeitskopi
|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-21
20:50:52 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:50:48 2012
New Revision: 194679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194679
Log:
2012-12-21 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-22
10:46:42 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Dec 22 10:46:37 2012
New Revision: 194694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194694
Log:
2012-12-22 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin10
at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
||gnu.org
--- Comment #42 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-25
15:26:24 UTC ---
I'll try to find a system I have access to where this also fails;
unassigning myself until then.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Bug #: 55806
Summary: Missed optimization with ANY or ALL
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55814
Bug #: 55814
Summary: Missed optimization with short-circuit evaluation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55814
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-27
17:23:54 UTC ---
An even more pronounced test case, where we could sink
a lot more stores, which in fact could lead to moving
a whole loop:
logical function bar(a,b,c)
logical, intent(in)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55789
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55839
Bug #: 55839
Summary: Inefficiency with array constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55840
Bug #: 55840
Summary: valgrind errors in sparseset.h
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55840
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|objc|other
--- Comment #1 from Thoma
||2013-01-05
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-05
20:54:57 UTC ---
Hi Tobias,
do you plan to commit the patch from Comment #1?
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-06
21:59:13 UTC ---
This patch works (not regression-tested yet), but the method
using the state variable seems hackish and error-prone.
What do you think?
Index: expr.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55957
Bug #: 55957
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bootstrap error in prop_value_t
evaluate_stmt
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55957
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Thoma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55957
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-13
12:14:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29154
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29154
Typescript from compilation
Bootstrap compiler is
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55957
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
Bug #: 55978
Summary: [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
21:29:25 UTC ---
For -O0, valgrind complains about
==15263== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==15263==at 0x4F26355: _gfortran_internal_pack (in_pack_generic.c:54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
21:50:35 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jan 14 21:50:28 2013
New Revision: 195179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195179
Log:
2013-01-14 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
22:29:37 UTC ---
Now for something harder (which is Michael Metcalf's original idiom):
if (any([a(1),a(2)]>acc) then...
This can be done by converting
[a1, a2, ...] binop scalar to [a1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
23:03:04 UTC ---
A reduced test case which shows the problem in the dump:
! { dg-do run }
! { dg-options "-fcoarray=single" }
!
! PR fortran/50981
! PR fortran/54618
!
program main
i
||2013-01-19
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-19
21:32:37 UTC ---
Created
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Bug #: 56049
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Simplification to constants not done
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29223|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55919
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-21
19:34:57 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jan 21 19:34:49 2013
New Revision: 195348
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195348
Log:
2013-01-21 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55919
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
Bug #: 56079
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE with C_PTR renaming
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-25
22:56:43 UTC ---
This also fails in the same place (without renaming):
program gar_nichts
use ISO_C_BINDING, only :: C_PTR, C_NULL_PTR
type(c_ptr) nada
call foo(transfer(C_NULL_PTR,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-25
23:10:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Sorry, an error in the test case. This has the same error:
program gar_nichts
use ISO_C_BINDING
type(c_ptr) nada
call foo(transfer(C_NU
|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29225|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33341
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-31
21:01:58 UTC ---
*** Bug 33341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||2013-02-01
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-01
17:47:54 UTC ---
I'll give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-01
18:16:30 UTC ---
To allow expressions like
a(n:2*n:2) = a(n+1:2*n+1:2)
to be optimized, I will try to write a function which calculates the difference
between two gfc_expr() for easy cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
09:51:03 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 09:50:58 2013
New Revision: 195684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195684
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
09:51:03 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 09:50:58 2013
New Revision: 195684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195684
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
21:31:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 29340
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29340
patch which implements comment #27
Still have to verify that this one is correct in all ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
22:38:22 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 22:38:14 2013
New Revision: 195687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195687
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
22:38:22 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 22:38:14 2013
New Revision: 195687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195687
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-03
13:15:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 3 13:15:18 2013
New Revision: 195695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195695
Log:
2013-02-03 Thomas Koenig
Ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-03
13:15:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 3 13:15:18 2013
New Revision: 195695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195695
Log:
2013-02-03 Thomas Koenig
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here is the AST dump.
Note the upcase letter in the symtree for the type.
We are probably missing an upcase string compare there...
Namespace: A-H: (REAL 4) I-N: (INTEGER 4) O-Z: (REAL 4)
procedure name =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 37495
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37495&action=edit
provisional patch
The patch appears to work, but the formatting for the errors looks strange.
Consider:
ig25
||
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 37499
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37499&action=edit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37499|0 |1
is obsolete|
: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When showing multiple diagnostics in one error message,
intermediate lines are shown (and some empty lines as well).
This can be shown with the attached patch, which has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 37522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37522&action=edit
patch to expose the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|Multi-location di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> Please take this as a humble general suggestion: Fortran maintainers should
> enforce during patch review that any new diagnostic has a corresponding
> tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #14)
> Is there any way to do multiline comments in gfortran?
>
> Am attempting to write expected output like this:
>
> ! { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> EXPECTED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69742
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
Summary|ICE with -O3 and ASSOCIATE |[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE
|containing repeated |with -O3 and ASSOCIATE
|expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 14 12:23:59 2016
New Revision: 233410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60526
* decl.c
ement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Currently, when the front-end optimization passes creates a temporary variable,
this is put into a BLOCK.
This has led to some
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Indeed invalid.
If you _really_ want to do something like this, you can do
integer :: i(4)
integer :: i1, i2, i3, i4
equivalence (i1,i(1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69816
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 14 15:13:39 2016
New Revision: 233411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60526
PR bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 14 15:13:39 2016
New Revision: 233411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60526
PR bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69816
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 14 17:08:44 2016
New Revision: 233413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60526
* decl.c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following code does not produce a call to sincos even with
-ffast-math -O3.
I think this should be happening since PR 30038, so am I tentatively
marking this as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69827
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-unknown-cygwin
Component
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Test case by James Van Buskirk from c.l.f:
ig25@linux-fd1f:/tmp> /usr/bin/gfortran a.f90
a.f90:15.20:
type is(CS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69829
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69829
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
This is seriously strange.
Looking into this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's a patch:
Index: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-passes.c (Revision 233410)
+++ frontend-passes.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -153,7 +153,7
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Easy enough to fix; I think this one can still go into 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69742
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Feb 16 21:10:00 2016
New Revision: 233474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233474&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/69742
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69742
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE|[4.9/5 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
The fix for 47674 wasn't complete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #42 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #41)
> Yes, but it was suggested that -std=legacy wasn't the right flag in comment
> 35...
What -std=legacy mostly does is to allow extensioms, not to accept
code which was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #44 from Thomas Koenig ---
I don't have access to SPEC, so I can only guess...
Is there maybe an equivalence involved, something like
COMMON /FOO/ X(1)
EQUIVALENCE (X,Y)
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #57 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #56)
> > > FUNCTION FOO(I, J)
> > > COMMON /BLK/ K(1)
> > > FOO = K(I) + K(J) + K(2*I) + K(2*J)
> > > END FUNCTION
>
> This piece of co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #68 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #80 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #79)
> Is the concern that we can't hide this behind an option, as that would
> "drive people away from gfortran" ? If that's the case, can we hide it
> behind an option t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69955
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
2101 - 2200 of 3752 matches
Mail list logo
