https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81978
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60198&action=edit
Draft patch
This patch fixes the issue by preventing the write-back to read-only memory
of the actua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118536
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118536
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118536
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118536
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c b/libgfortran/io/transfer.c
index 0177e052062..59871ac1982 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/transfer.c
@@ -2363,6 +2363,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118536
Bug ID: 118536
Summary: G formatted printing of UNSIGNED fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106603
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68152
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110076
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107362
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A type promotion or conversion for binary operations is a real issue.
While it is feasible, we should step back and draw a line what is more or
less consistent with the spirit of the UNSIGNED pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #12)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> > Question is, what should we permit...
> >
> > For 'normal' operations, only unsigned op unsigned is permit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #10)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> > Question is, what should we permit...
> >
> > For 'normal' operations, only unsigned op unsigned is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #2)
> > Not Thomas, but ...
> >
> > https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-116.txt
> >
> > The exponentiation operat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
Bug ID: 118499
Summary: Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60164
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60164&action=edit
Draft patch
This fixes the crash by switching over to another round in the conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118471
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> Seems as if a special case for Fortran pointers is needed, where the a->span
> has to be replaced by the byte size of the base type.
>
> (Needs some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60157
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60157&action=edit
Patch
This patch rejects NULL() as source-expr, without or with MOLD.
I believe that F03:C632 can b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Disabing the following part of r15-6508-gbca8b13bd7bc3d fixes the ICE:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
index 7d3a9ed4a24..814a2055eca 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Besides PACK, there are further transformational intrinsics leading to an ICE:
s(1:1) = pack (s(1:1), mask=.true.) ! ICE
s(1:1) = reshape (s(1:1), [1]) ! ICE
s(1:1) = spread (s(1), 1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further reduced:
subroutine sub(s)
character(len=*), intent(inout) :: s(:)
s(1:1) = pack (s(1:1), mask=.true.) ! ICE
end subroutine sub
There is no difference in the tree dump between -fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115788
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115788
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118441
Bug ID: 118441
Summary: [15 Regression] [openmp] ICE with assignment of PACK
of string array
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115788
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that the "standard"
print *, huge(0_16)
works on x86-64, where kind=16 is available, as well as uint128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Component|fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118406
Bug ID: 118406
Summary: Printing large UNSIGNED(kind=16) crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118337
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #4)
> If you now compile the following with 14
>
> program bar
> use foo
> print *, len(f_c_string(c_char_'abc'))
> end program
>
> you get
>
> % gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103391
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115788
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #13)
> BTW The attached patch regression tests OK :-)
Simple and effective. Nice!
Regarding the treatment of the error message: do we need to help the
tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #20)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
> > Will wait some time before considering backports.
>
> Hi Harald,
>
> In spite of my nervousness about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] Cray
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #15)
> I have tried replacing TREE_VOLATILE by TREE_STATIC, i.e.
>
> + // Hack: prevent optimization of comparison of Cray pointers
> (PR106692)
> + if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.5.0, 12.4.1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60009&action=edit
Hackish solution for Cray pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
> Following your remarks, I tried setting the pointer decl tree static. That
> resulted in the test succeeding for -O but it crashed at higher levels of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #29 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #28)
> --- snip ---
>
> > In iso-c-binding.def, one finds
> >
> > NAMED_CHARKNDCST (ISOCBINDING_CHAR, "c_char",gfc_default_character_kind)
> >
> > so ki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> Created attachment 59993 [details]
> Reproducer
Thanks for the reproducer. I can confirm the ICE after r15-6408, but
it is fixed for me with r15-642
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc
> index 580f8c8407d..759eb99a645 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
Replying to myself:
> So if I come from the other side, which code to accept and which to diagnose,
> I tried:
>
> if (string->ts.type != BT_CHARACTER
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #17)
> > I suppose the error in check.cc(gfc_check_f_c_string) that starts
> > with
> >
> > if (string->ts.typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-23
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still missing:
- handling of CLASS/unlimited polyporphic assumed-rank dummies
- tightening of checks according to F2008/F2018
- fix testsuite fallout due to some invalid testcases (see comment#7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113928
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113928
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This bug seems to get fixed by the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120#c12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #10)
>> > It is completely irrelevant that "result" is a dummy. Just try it.
> > And creating a temporary for *every lhs pointer* cannot be acceptable.
> > There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> > The following patch works and might be a reasonable compromise:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch works and might be a reasonable compromise:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
index 82a2ae1f747..985a26281ad 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118080
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> It is unsurprising that this fails because trans-expr.cc has:
>
> static void
> conv_dummy_value (gfc_se * parmse, gfc_expr * e, gfc_symbol * fsym,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch for the case of derived type dummies:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-December/061410.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114022
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.3.0, 14.2.0, 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #18)
> I have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate.
> By F2023, 16.9.53 if x is real in cmplx(x), then
> y is set to 0. In addition, actual arguments are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #16)
> > That makes the conversion from real to complex sort of "slightly
> > anti-linear":
> >
> >print *, cmplx (-1.), - cmplx (1.)
> >
> > gives:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #14)
> > > If 'r' is of type REAL and 'z' is of type COMPLEX, the Fortran standard
> > > is clear that the interpretation is
> > >
> > > = r * z
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117842
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117820
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
> If I add a couple more print statements:
>
> print *, -9223372036854775807
> print *, -9223372036854775808
>
> $ gfc -frange-check -Wall pr11782
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95215
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 97122, which changed state.
Bug 97122 Summary: Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a
MODULE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97122
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97122
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100094
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46532
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100097
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paal at levold dot net
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102275
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Furthermore, replacing the line
write(*,*) 'line 4:',array(:, sort_2(i(1:2)) )
by an expression with explicit parentheses around the array argument
write(*,*) 'line 4:',(array(:, sort_2(i(1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further data points:
- introducing a temporary array for the result, e.g.
integer :: aux_array(4)
and using it as
aux_array = array(:, sort_2(i(1:2)) )
write(*,*) 'line 5:',aux_array
ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117791
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> I am currently regtesting a third patch:
Regtests OK (so far). Need to work on a more elaborate testcase now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114021
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
1 - 100 of 1543 matches
Mail list logo
