https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68053
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68053
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Nov 9 06:06:52 2015
New Revision: 229993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Steven g. Kargl
PR fortran/68053
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68053
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Nov 9 05:50:24 2015
New Revision: 229992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Steven g. Kargl
PR fortran/68053
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68182
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68182
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 9 03:57:19 2015
New Revision: 229983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix bb-reorder problem with degenerate cond_jump (PR68182)
The code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Let me put it differently.
At the C level, your asm statement outputs to an integer register.
Internally, the asm outputs to a condition reg, and the C statement
is expanded to also do a move from that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095
--- Comment #3 from David ---
> "=@ccc"(r) does not output to the "cc" register, it
> outputs to a general register.
Actually, I don't believe it does.
In v5, you *did* have to use "setc %0" with a general register AND it generated
an extra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36557
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We now do
cntlzw 3,3
srwi 3,3,5
xori 3,3,0x1
blr
which is still not optimal (and not what -m32 / -m32 -mpowerpc64 do).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68250
Bug ID: 68250
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in
64-bit mode)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68249
Bug ID: 68249
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54110
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3, 6.0
--- Comment #1 from Segh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66259
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is this fixed now? Michael, could you test again?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68248
Bug ID: 68248
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in
uniform_vector_p, at tree.c:10807
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61298
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-11-08, at 12:44 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> It looks target specific. Any progress?
It's not possible to implement on hpux. We have a kernel helper on linux.
Dave
--
John D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68053
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=68181
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andris.pavenis at iki dot fi
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67864
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68153
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68151
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68224
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67813
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68224
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Nov 8 18:05:30 2015
New Revision: 229960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229960&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68224
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68231
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
The ILP32 failure should be fixed in r229959. I tested it with -m32 on x86_64
but not on AIX/powerpc, so I'll leave this open until test results confirm that
the test passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68153
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Nov 8 17:53:36 2015
New Revision: 229958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68153
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67942
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sun Nov 8 17:53:51 2015
New Revision: 229959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Clean up fallout on ILP32 from r229831.
gcc/
PR c++/67942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68151
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Nov 8 17:43:29 2015
New Revision: 229957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68151
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67202
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68218
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Sun Nov 8 17:37:42 2015
New Revision: 229956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229956&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2015-11-08 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68184
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55858
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68224
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Nov 8 17:25:16 2015
New Revision: 229955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68224
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55980
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #14)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> > *** Bug 68127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> just FYI, for me (PR68127)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 8 16:47:58 2015
New Revision: 229954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68196
* class.c (has_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66465
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 8 16:47:58 2015
New Revision: 229954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68196
* class.c (has_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #14 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> *** Bug 68127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
just FYI, for me (PR68127) the issue pops up in a non-deterministic way, I
don't know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57262
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57992
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 54238, which changed state.
Bug 54238 Summary: If possible, TRANSFER should use assignment instead of MEMCPY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55100
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64962
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68247
Bug ID: 68247
Summary: Remove pass_first_instance
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-12-21 00:00:00 |2015-11-8
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66494
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Variant: If one adds a
> subroutine test()
> print *, get(1)
> end subroutine test
> in the module itself, one gets an ICE:
>
> foo.f90:18:0: internal compiler error: in gfc_generate_function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66577
--- Comment #5 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com ---
> Error: Function result 'intsuccess' at (1) cannot have an initializer
> I don't understand.
C506 -- the type specification for a function result cannot have an
initialization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68242
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #3)
> I think my firstprivate patch resolves this one.
That is unlikely: the report here is about issues with the test cases
themselves, on gomp-4_0-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22202|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68243
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Sorry! Wrong PR.
On 8 November 2015 at 11:18, pault at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68243
>
> --- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68243
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
> That's a wierd one! I'll take a look later on.
I presume that I have to lay out the common block with the pointer and the
string length variable together? It's the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68189
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #6)
> Started with r208165 (on x86_64-linux with -O3).
And the subsequent fix in r208222 does not help for this test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66494
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68185
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Status
63 matches
Mail list logo