https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20416
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61785
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
Bug ID: 61790
Summary: [4.10 Regression] gcov-tool.c uses atoll
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58351
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61669
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61632
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 33114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33114&action=edit
Patch to fix this issue.
Th eproblem was some use of pointers in a not so reliable way, calculating
offsets fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61527
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61527
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61789
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61789
Bug ID: 61789
Summary: Missing syscall constants
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
Marc, are you going to send your patch to the mailing list (CC Jason)? I note
that current clang too for enum_base.C issues the narrowing diagnostic: as-is
patch seems already pretty good to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I think gfortran behavior is correct. The problem with the sample code is in
the lack of handling in subroutine BOTTOM. The loop is reading past the end of
the file. END= is not a true error condition, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23827
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61780
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jul 12 19:09:11 2014
New Revision: 212486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212486&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61780
* dependency.c (gfc_dep_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61628
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jul 12 19:05:52 2014
New Revision: 212485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/61628
* trans-ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have rebuilt a clean Xfoil with the following patch
--- src_orig/xpol.f2007-09-16 03:56:31.0 +0200
+++ src/xpol.f2014-07-12 19:55:40.0 +0200
@@ -606,8 +606,7 @@ C add po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61288
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61288
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 12 16:36:25 2014
New Revision: 212482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/22434
PR c++/61288
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22434
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 12 16:36:25 2014
New Revision: 212482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/22434
PR c++/61288
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51352
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
We have this comment in cp_parser_direct_declarator:
/* Normally, the array bound must be an integral constant
expression. However, as an extension, we allow VLAs
in func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
I wouldn't do that, in particular not now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Do you think it's OK to pop this into 4.9 too even though it's slushy?
Do I need to ask any one in particular - or is it obvious?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61788
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51352
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at rhymneyconsulting dot
co.uk
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61780
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
I didn't see your posting, which was about an hour before mine. At
least we came to the same conclusion!
Thanks
Paul
On 12 July 2014 13:43, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It could be r161021 (pr44477).
Read r161020 and the error message has been introduced in
libgfortran/io/transfer.c at this revision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I wonder if the gfortran present behavior is not the *RIGHT* one. It is
obviously for any READ following 'CALL BOTTOM(LU)', I am not 100% confident for
WRITE. Not that replacing
90 RETURN
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31393
Bug 31393 depends on bug 28378, which changed state.
Bug 28378 Summary: Intrinsic extensions should be deselectable via command line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28378
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28378
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61780
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61775
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This seems to fix it here (not heavily tested): ...
Confirmed, regtested without regression and no obvious problem with my other
tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61780
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The change occurred between revisions r158253 (2010-04-13, "working?") and
r162456 (2010-07-23, error). It could be r161021 (pr44477).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced test
CHARACTER*29 LINE1, LINE2
CHARACTER*128 LINEL, LINED, LINEF, FNPOL
INTEGER :: i, IA, IA1, IA2, NBL, NIPOL, NJPOL, LU
INTEGER :: IRETYP = 1, IMATYP = 1
INTEG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61788
Bug ID: 61788
Summary: use of x[nr][nc] as array parameter passing mechanism
in mixed language programming
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
38 matches
Mail list logo