https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #18 from felix ---
Proper built-ins are ordinary identifiers subject to ordinary name resolution
and shadowing, so the 'keyword built-in' case is impossible. If you don't know
if (or don't want to depend on the fact that) a given buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55781
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maskray at google dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91160
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Apparently, no one uses merge_bits() with BOZ literal constants.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91160
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #1 from kargl a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91160
Bug ID: 91160
Summary: merge_bits is broken for BOZ arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-07/msg00035.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57255
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've just added a couple more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78308
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91159
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, this is https://wg21.link/cwg1611 and was fixed by
https://wg21.link/cwg1658
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91158
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Cassio Neri from comment #0)
> However, branching at runtime is unacceptable and, if the compiler does not
> know the value of n it's preferable to drop the 'if-else' altogether and
> live with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91159
Bug ID: 91159
Summary: Compilation error on explicitly defaulting default
constructor of abstract class with virtual base class
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The standard shows the definitions based on the Rodrigues formulae for x >= 0.
So maybe this is an extension in the strictest sense.
Are the Rodrigues formulae only valid for x >= 0. I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91158
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Do you know std::is_constant_evaluated (C++20)?
> Although a regular 'if' does what I want, I don't get the assurance that 'if
> contexpr' provides about no branching at runtime. Instead, I need to rely on
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #69 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-07-12 12:48 p.m., elowe at elowe dot com wrote:
> I will upload the .final file
Would you also upload the preprocessed source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91148
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Jul 13 15:57:21 2019
New Revision: 273468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Shut up -Wformat-diag somewhat
We currently get lot of buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Paprocki ---
Thanks, I’ll give it a try. From memory, the .s file I attached did not contain
any RW csect by the same name like you mention in the description, but perhaps
the patch still addresses the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91158
Bug ID: 91158
Summary: "if (__builtin_constant_p(n))" versus "if constexpr
(__builtin_constant_p(n))"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #68 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-07-13 11:07 a.m., danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> ia64-hpux is the
> only target where POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is -1.
Sorry, missed s390 which is also -1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91143
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Landden ---
Nevermind, if it is roughly compatible with the ARM or x86 one it doesn't
effect me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91143
Shawn Landden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shawn at git dot icu
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Paprocki ---
Thanks, I’m just interested in the URL / bug / commit for the patch(es) you
created so that I can apply them to our in-house GCC and test everything out.
If you could point me to them I’d appreciate it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91155
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Frey ---
Additionally, other cases are broken as well. Using
dummy< '\'' >
The output with GCC 9.1 is
dummy< ''' >
while it was correct with GCC 8.3:
dummy< '\'' >
This probably means that characters are not escap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90723
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Sat Jul 13 08:28:33 2019
New Revision: 273466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-15 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from
28 matches
Mail list logo
