https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
BTW clang's output is more informative:
test.c:285:29: runtime error: load of misaligned address 0x7fe669eee001 for
type 'U64' (aka 'unsigned long'), which requires 8 byte alignment
0x7fe669eee001: not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> True, fortran strings are not generally NULL terminated. However, for
> internal representation between Frontend and library we try to do so for
> safety. Evide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Bug ID: 65709
Summary: [5 Regression] Bad code for LZ4 decompression with -O3
on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
Created attachment 35267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35267&action=edit
preprocessed test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to David Krauss from comment #6)
> The fix is simple. Tested and submitted for approval.
Thank you. Did you send it to gcc-patches, with jason AT redhat in Cc: ? I
can't find any email from you aroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
Michal Misiaszek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michal.misiaszek at kofinder
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
The profile difference is:
52.31% facerec facerec[.] MAIN__.lto_priv.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42172
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The optimal code is generated on pre-armv7 processors. The difference starts
from expand. On armv7-processors, zero_extract operator is generated, rather
than logic operation. Seem combiner can'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42172
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65708
Bug ID: 65708
Summary: Non-type template argument not visible causes
substitution failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766
Louis Dionne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65707
Bug ID: 65707
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:18577
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65706
Bug ID: 65706
Summary: [c++14] Pack expansion with variable template
incorrectly marked as invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, but if you can look up the revision range, I would like to know what
happened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
True, fortran strings are not generally NULL terminated. However, for internal
representation between Frontend and library we try to do so for safety.
Evidently missed one or don't have it in this case. St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
> Created attachment 35255 [details]
> checking on powerpc-darwin9 (GCC 5 bootstrap) x86_64-darwin12 (gcc 5
> bootstrap) x86_64-darwin13 (clang XCode6 bootstrap) i68
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Apr 8 22:52:24 2015
New Revision: 221937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/65693
* combine.c (is_parallel_of_n_reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I sent a patch for the combine issue,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00359.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Wed Apr 8 21:37:47 2015
New Revision: 221936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221936&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-09 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Backport from trunk r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
>
> - When compiling for big endian the RA mistakes mach and macl when
> storing mach:macl to a DImode reg:reg pair.
> This could probably fixed by providing appropri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65705
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Another testcase fails with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow :
$ cat flags-min
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
-fcheck-pointer-bounds
-mmpx
$ /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-latest/bin/gcc @flags-min testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65705
Bug ID: 65705
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in contains_struct_check with
-fsanitize=null -fcheck-pointer-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65704
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65704
Bug ID: 65704
Summary: Provide portable versions of std::timed_mutex and
std::recursive_timed_mutex
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55143
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2013-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65703
Bug ID: 65703
Summary: -fdefer-pop is not documented
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Vogt ---
Created attachment 35263
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35263&action=edit
Patch for more specific error messages
This is a suggestion for more verbose error messages... What do you th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
seen building the aseprite package on armhf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Bug ID: 65702
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (tree check: expected ssa_name,
have var_decl in expand_gimple_basic_block, at
cfgexpand.c:5506) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759
--- Comment #6 from W E Brown ---
I hadn't realized this was still open :)
FWIW, my paper N3846
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3846.pdf) summarizes
on p. 3 my recommended "guidelines for programmers to follow in crafti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> > This looks similar to PR 64600.
> > The problem seems to be arm_canonicalize_comparison that
> > canonicalizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61645
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, I looked into this regression a bit. The patch just avoids some "false
positives" of inlining functions called once (i.e. case where we think the
function will optimize out but it really won't so we end u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> This looks similar to PR 64600.
> The problem seems to be arm_canonicalize_comparison that
> canonicalizes a comparison with 2147483647 (0x7fff)
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And we could replace the clunky "template argument substituting _UIntType" with
simply "result_type" e.g.
"result_type must be an unsigned integer type"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59969
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4064.html will
improve things in this area, but isn't implemented yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59969
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Goswin von Brederlow from comment #0)
> The online docs do not mention what version of the compiler they document.
The latest one.
> When something doesn't work as documented this makes it ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35261&action=edit
gcc5-pr65693.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
That link is always the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #37 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35260&action=edit
libgo/go/go/build/doc.go documentation update
Adding comments about the use of the netgo tag and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64118
--- Comment #2 from Angelo Graziosi ---
In my original test case, if I move the definition of function f(x) before the
subroutine foo(), does not produce warnings. In other words:
real(dp) function f(x) result(y)
real(dp), intent(in) :: x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I see GCC not trying to throw away the useless arm of the parallel,
just as comment 7 mentions. I wonder why that is, investigating.
This isn't the root cause; it is just exposing a problem in the RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #6)
> Whilst I think this probably would fix the problem - surely this will change
> the meaning of loads of constraints, on loads of platforms? I will of course
> defer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
build log
/gcc/spec/sb-megrez-head-64/x86_64/install-201503200620/bin/gfortran -c -o
FaceRecTypes.o -Ofast -march=native -flto=8 -fno-fat-lto-objects
FaceRecTypes.f90
/gcc/spec/sb-megrez-head-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #6 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Whilst I think this probably would fix the problem - surely this will change
the meaning of loads of constraints, on loads of platforms? I will of course
defer to the release manager(s) (!), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
-Ofast -march=native, that is. (which may be the key to the issue?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sounds like either libgfortran bug, or fortran FE bug.
What asan_finish_file sees for .LC3 is:
unit size
align 8 symtab -244602288 alias set -1 canonical type
0x715083f0 precisi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
Bug ID: 65701
Summary: r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto, missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65700
Bug ID: 65700
Summary: Documentation of internals is inconsistent in itself
and diverges from reality
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 35259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35259&action=edit
reduced file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
Bug ID: 65699
Summary: online docs lacks version that it documents
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have successfully bootstrapped r221917 on x86_64-apple-darwin14 with the
patch in comment 27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35258&action=edit
gcc5-pr65689.patch
Untested fix. For aarch64, there are lots of constraints determined by this
patch to not al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Wahab ---
I'm working on this but it isn't obvious how to fix it. The strong barriers
aren't needed for the __atomics and will have an effect on performance so
simply strengthening the MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST implementation i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65698
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35257
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35257&action=edit
assembly for test.c
Additional option '-march=slm' was used for it but it is non-essential.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65698
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35256&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It needs to be compiled with "-O3 -m32" options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65698
Bug ID: 65698
Summary: Non-optimal code for simple compare function for x86
32-bit target
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Bug ID: 65697
Summary: __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync
builtins
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #10 from Gianfranco ---
Hi @Markus, I'm *really* impressed about your efficiency.
I reported the progresses on the vbox official mail list, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65696
Bug ID: 65696
Summary: ASAN reports global-buffer-overrun for local tagged
types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35249|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.2, 5.0
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65671
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Bug ID: 65695
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] calling constexpr constructor with
pointer-to-member is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Vogt ---
Then, it would be as simple as passing generate_error the message instead of
NULL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #8 from Gianfranco ---
Nope, I can build on debian (I'm the maintainer BTW) with 4.9 successfully.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=virtualbox&arch=amd64&ver=4.3.26-dfsg-1&stamp=1426696248
for now I forced gcc-4.9 as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Vogt ---
I think this happens in io/transfer.c:
413 void *
414 read_block_form (st_parameter_dt *dtp, int * nbytes)
415 {
...
419 if (!is_stream_io (dtp))
420 {
421 if (dtp->u.p.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
gcc-4.9 combines udivmoddi4 to :
(insn 30 5 8 2 (set (reg:DI 103)
(const_int 16 [0x10])) pr65693.ii:6 -1
(nil))
[...]
(insn 9 8 10 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 94)
(udi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, this testcase only ICEs with gcc-5:
markus@x4 tmp % < foo.ii
int a, b;
unsigned c;
static void
invoke_copy_to_stack (unsigned long *p1, int, int)
{
for (; b;)
if (a)
*p1 = 0;
}
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
seen when building the dnaclust package, also seen in the qtbase-opensource-src
package. currently reducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
Bug ID: 65694
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (in decompose, at rtl.h:2007) on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see why this should compile with -O0 actually, it assumes optimization
being performed at -O0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65653
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Fair enough... I have no experience in coding for GCC. Could you give me
> a hint where (which file) to start?
The content of the message is set by 'translate_error (int code)' (line 412 of
libgfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Daniel Richard G. ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
>>
>> Looking closer, you are *not* using the Solaris assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Gianfranco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
