https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
Chen Qi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qi.chen at windriver dot com
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Mon Oct 30 01:57:59 2017
New Revision: 254211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix cygwin builds, broken by PR sanitizer/82517 fix.
gcc/
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58884
--- Comment #4 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
I think there is a misunderstanding here...
These patches, when I submit them, will add a new warning option. It is not
appropriate to add this to the normal "unused-value" warning because the
situat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #22 from DIL ---
On the other hand, I have another test which also crashes in clone_object() for
the same reason, but does not involve gfc_vector.F90. It goes through line 710
of gfc_list.F90, function ListIterAppend(), where again a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #21 from DIL ---
Paul,
And as you have noticed, this characteristic construct is there
(gfc_vector:806) :)
call
this%container%vec_tile(q(4))%tile_batch(q(3))%batch_seg(q(2))%seg_elem(q(1))%&
&vector_elem_ctor(elem_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #20 from DIL ---
So, if we for a second trust valgrind executed on an -O3 optimized binary, then
line 1402 of gfc_graph.F90, namely,
ierr=git%append_vertex(vrt)
should be the origin. The object vrt (type graph_vertex_t) is the object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #19 from DIL ---
On my Ubuntu 16.04, removing STAT= from the allocate() statement does not help
unfortunately, but it now crashes via a different path, although for the same
reason. I will experiment more to see if I can finally repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82762
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82765
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192
Brian Groose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brian at groose dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82455
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas ---
It is the _len field of the unlimited polymorphic 'object' that is not being
initialized... somewhere.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66268
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpakkane at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82763
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hello,
I got your email from a directory on Google.
I am currently undergoing a building project, and i will like to purchase items
to make a few unique installments i'm sure your company will be able to provide
me with the services. kindly get back to me if you can so we can discuss
Quote,spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> > > PS If I remove the STAT= from the allocate, the code runs just fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Summary|__atomic_alway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81702
--- Comment #6 from Adam Lackorzynski ---
So assuming removing the assert is ok, the following would address it:
--- gimple-fold.c (revision 254205)
+++ gimple-fold.c (working copy)
@@ -6439,7 +6439,6 @@
gcc_assert (init);
if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82722
--- Comment #4 from berni.w11 at gmx dot net ---
Created attachment 42497
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42497&action=edit
another testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #10 from Matti Bryce ---
If anyone knows how to get gcc with debug symbols, that'd be useful, because I
could get a better stack trace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #9 from Matti Bryce ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Hi. I can't build your pre-process source file. Please follow steps to
> reduce the segfault:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
>
> And pleas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #8 from Matti Bryce ---
Created attachment 42496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42496&action=edit
Backtrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82725
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I'm testing following patch:
--cut here--
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c (revision 254199)
+++ i386.c (working copy)
@@ -15079,10 +15079,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #7 from Matti Bryce ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Confirmed with cross compiler, I reduce a test-case.
I've attempted to reduce a test case, but after 2 days of running creduce, the
produced file won't generate the
26 matches
Mail list logo
