http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gmail dot com ---
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
>
> --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
> The problem is actually i
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
>
> --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
> The problem is actually introduced much earlier, during the cunrolli (complete
> unroll inner) pass. I'm attaching dumps fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32361
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32361&action=edit
Dump before complete unrolling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32362
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32362&action=edit
Dump after complete unrolling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
The problem is actually introduced much earlier, during the cunrolli (complete
unroll inner) pass. I'm attaching dumps from 055t.copyrename2 and
056t.cunrolli to show what happens. Prior to unrolling, we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59727
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 16 00:35:19 2014
New Revision: 208604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from mainline
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60542
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This is not PR 47674 (or so I think).
Why do you think so? The valgrind report in comment 5 is the same as the one in
pr47674 comment 0.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03 s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 16 00:18:21 2014
New Revision: 208603
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from mainline
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, thanks, I didn't see that. I will track down where the bogus barrier is
being introduced. Thanks for the help!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60542
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's what valgrind has to say:
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Where> cat r.f90
! { dg-do run }
! Test the fix for PR47523 in which concatenations did not work
! correctly with assignments to deferred character l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 23:06:44 2014
New Revision: 208599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
PR libfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #44 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 23:06:44 2014
New Revision: 208599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
PR libfortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60390
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60391
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60391
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |abutcher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Sorry, no joy. With Eric's suggested patch I still got:
=== acats tests ===
Running chapter a ...
FAIL: a87b59a
Running chapter c2 ...
Running chapter c3 ...
FAIL: c380004
Running cha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 20:34:58 2014
New Revision: 208596
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
PR libfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #43 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 20:31:33 2014
New Revision: 208595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
PR libfortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 20:31:33 2014
New Revision: 208595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
PR libfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> TODO: A proper treatment of array arguments seems to be missing for both
> SIZEOF
> and STORAGE_SIZE.
??? besides
if (sizeof(b)/= 24) call abort()
if (storage_size(b) /= 64) call abort()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #11 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
ailure with
gcc version 4.9.0 20140315 (experimental) [trunk revision 208590] (GCC)
> ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Where> ./a.out
>
> Program aborted. Backtrace:
> #0 0x7F2AC9F1D417
> #1 0x7F2AC9F1EB12
> #2 0x7F2AC9FEF208
> #3 0x400C9E in MAIN__ at realloc_on_assign_5.f0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #36 from David Kredba ---
I did not:
/var/tmp/portage/app-office/calligra-2.8.0/temp/ccv1d4Ui.ltrans1.ltrans.o: In
function `operator<':
/var/tmp/portage/app-office/calligra-2.8.0/work/calligra-2.8.0/sheets/Condition.h:170:
undefined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Pettersson ---
The backport patch has now been submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00758.html
ersion 4.9.0 20140315 (experimental) (GCC)
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Where> ./a.out
Program aborted. Backtrace:
#0 0x7F2AC9F1D417
#1 0x7F2AC9F1EB12
#2 0x7F2AC9FEF208
#3 0x400C9E in MAIN__ at realloc_on_assign_5.f03:16 (discriminator 1)
Abgebrochen
gdb tells me this is at
Bre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60542
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1)
> Janus, do you have any idea?
Not without any further info:
* What OS/configure line?
* What GCC revision? When did it show up?
* Can you generate a b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60542
Bug ID: 60542
Summary: [4.9 Regression] realloc_on_assign_5.f03 aborts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60542
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> Any reason why the patch in comment 7 has not been applied?
It was posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00068.html some time
ago,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45290
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #16)
> (In reply to janus from comment #13)
> > (2) We currently get a slightly inappropriate error message for:
>
> This can be fixed with the following patch
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60541
Bug ID: 60541
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at
final.c:2952: could not split insn with
-march=barcelona
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
--- Comment #3 from David Kredba ---
Thank you.
So it is Openssh bug?
-fpie should come from configure processing, should not?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45290
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #13)
> (2) We currently get a slightly inappropriate error message for:
>
> implicit none
> integer, target, save :: t1
> integer, pointer :: p1 => t
> end
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Well the C standard requires it, though we could optimize it away since
> 32bit integers can be exactly represented in a 64bit IEEE double.
Yes, for doubles, absolut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 15:15:22 2014
New Revision: 208592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/58324
* gfortran.dg/l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Don't convert int to float |Don't convert int to float
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 15:12:01 2014
New Revision: 208591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/58324
* io/list_read.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
Bug ID: 60540
Summary: Don't convert int to float when comparing int with
float constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Any reason why the patch in comment 7 has not been applied? I have it in my
working tree since a while without any associated problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60539
Bug ID: 60539
Summary: [SH] builtin string functions ignore loop and label
alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60538
Bug ID: 60538
Summary: [SH] improve support for cmp/str insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #25 from Allan Jensen ---
Will it be backported to 4.8?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60537
Bug ID: 60537
Summary: Loop optimization code bloat for simple loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #10)
> I will check how to silence the verifier.
Over two weeks has elapsed.
Is there anything I can help with to expedite this bug fix ?
4.9.0 is due soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 55207, which changed state.
Bug 55207 Summary: [F08] Variables declared in the main program should
implicitly get the SAVE attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56201
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
--- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk ---
It is rejected as far back as 2.95.x, so almost certainly not a regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60536
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Also happens without -flto.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> > Nothing obvious stands out. I presume that exceptions cannot be caught?
>
> OK, it's presumably http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-12/msg00157.html but no
> AR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51076
Bug 51076 depends on bug 55887, which changed state.
Bug 55887 Summary: [OOP][F08] ICE with CLASS and data-target pointer
association in (default) initialization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 55887 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45290
Bug 45290 depends on bug 55887, which changed state.
Bug 55887 Summary: [OOP][F08] ICE with CLASS and data-target pointer
association in (default) initialization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
r206362 (2014-01-06) is OK, r206567 (2014-01-12) gives the ICE.
> Probably caused by the finalization implementation?
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jan 6 23:21:39 2014
New Revision: 206379
URL: http://gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Mar 15 10:53:04 2014
New Revision: 208590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/55207
* decl.c (matc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60536
Bug ID: 60536
Summary: Backtrace corrupted on Firefox build with
-fsanitize=address and -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56706
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-10-25 00:00:00 |2014-3-15
--- Comment #14 from Joost
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535
Bug ID: 60535
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Link failure with -flto and
-fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60534
Bug ID: 60534
Summary: ICE: in expand_GOMP_SIMD_VF, at internal-fn.c:142 with
-fopenmp -O -fno-tree-loop-optimize and #pragma omp
simd reduction
Product: gcc
Versi
71 matches
Mail list logo
