https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71583
Chengnian Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Ian,
Aaah, OK. I was rather impressed by what you had done with the first bug :-)
For some reason, one of the symbols is not being committed. I will try
and figure out why.
Che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
gcc version 7.0.0 20160618 (experimental) [trunk revision 237575] (GCC)
$:
$: gcc-trunk -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:4:4: error: expected expression before ‘int’
{int};
^~~
small.c:4:4: internal compiler error: in
c_parser_postfix_expression_after_paren_type, at c/c-parser.c
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160618 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37811|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71338
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks DJ. Is it OK to backport it to 5 and 6 branches? If you're OK with it,
I can do it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48925
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-06/msg00047.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-06/msg00047.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71552
--- Comment #5 from Mason ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> In a discussion on gcc-help the submitter provided a different/better test
> case for which GCC could and arguably should emit a better error than
> "initializer element i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71552
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01357.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71580
Bug ID: 71580
Summary: Internal compiler error associated with type bound
defined assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
Nix changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at esperi dot org.uk
--- Comment #9 from Nix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71500
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at johnmaddock dot co.uk
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #14 from Ian Harvey ---
I wouldn't know where to start with respect to the internal compiler error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71375
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
aix52.h overrides TARGET_EXTRA_BUILTINS (sets it to 0); aix43.h and
aix51.h do not. They probably should.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70822
David Abdurachmanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.abdurachmanov at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71578
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Jun 18 11:10:10 2016
New Revision: 237571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/71435
* reload1.c (reload): Pass 0 to fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71579
Bug ID: 71579
Summary: type_traits miss checks for type completeness in some
traits
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 38722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38722&action=edit
Test case
Test case I have prepared for this PR before I saw the problem reported in
comment 8.
The te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Ian Harvey from comment #10)
> The patch discussed in #5 applies changes to the wrong location in
> trans-decl.c. Corrected patch attached.
>
> With this latest patch I see no variation in che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71552
--- Comment #2 from Mason ---
Martin,
Please reconsider this bug's resolution.
In my opinion, "conversion of integers to pointers" is a red herring.
This test case (double vs double ptr) triggers the same confusing error:
struct foo { double
26 matches
Mail list logo
