http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48425
--- Comment #1 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:18:30 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Sep 15 19:18:26 2011
New Revision: 178892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178892
Log:
Backport r176741 from trunk.
2011-09-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46577
--- Comment #1 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:18:30 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Sep 15 19:18:26 2011
New Revision: 178892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178892
Log:
Backport r176741 from trunk.
2011-09-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:47:21 UTC ---
Also we need to check for the following F08 constraints:
"12.5.2.9 Actual arguments associated with dummy procedure entities
If the interface of a dummy procedure is explici
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50279
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
20:21:04 UTC ---
I believe the code is valid, and it has nothing to do with recursive I/O.
If you comment out the write in the mul function gfortran still fails, so it
does not depend on recursive I/O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
20:26:18 UTC ---
I created it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
20:28:15 UTC ---
g95 fails with
In file pr50407.f90:10
print 2.ip.8 ! gfortran gets confused, expects a comma
1
Error: Syntax error in PRINT statement at (1)
print *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Bug #: 50426
Summary: gfortran -O1 ICE in estimate_function_body_sizes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
20:36:54 UTC ---
I disagree, the Fortran 95 standard at R911 allows PRINT format
and R913 says that format may be a default-char-expr
Now, 2.ip.8 is a default character expression, or not?
Again, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 20:44:33 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Sep 15 20:44:30 2011
New Revision: 178895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178895
Log:
2011-09-15 Tom de Vries
PR testsui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 20:48:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I created it.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please
elaborate?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Elias Pipping changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25266|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 21:13:16 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:21:04PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
>
> --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
> 20:21:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf 2011-09-15 21:21:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:21:04PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 21:32:41 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:21:42PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
>
> When you put parentheses around the expressions,
> like (2.ip.8), then the code compiles.
>
> This is also wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50383
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-15 21:39:06 UTC ---
Still further reduction:
class Resource {
};
class BaseReference {
};
template < class interface_type > class Reference:public BaseReference {
public:
void *operator new (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin 2011-09-15
21:39:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> With (patched) trunk, I get:
>
> f951: internal compiler error: in simplify_cobound, at fortran/simplify.c:3552
With vanilla trunk, I get instead:
pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
22:06:50 UTC ---
> So as Steve, I think the code is invalid.
My mistake: I did not parse the code well enough to realize that the result of
the operator was a valid format. Concerning the actua
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50427
Bug #: 50427
Summary: IRA fails to detect conflict
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 22:53:17 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:32:41PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:21:42PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
> >
> > When you put par
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 23:05:25 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> putting a fairly ugly hack into match_dt_format to
> skip statement lable matching, I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin 2011-09-15
23:19:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > With (patched) trunk, I get:
> > [...]
> With vanilla trunk, I get instead:
> [...]
For information the patch in "(patched) trun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Elias Pipping changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25298|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Elias Pipping changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50425
Ganga Jaiswal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #2 from Ganga Jaiswa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #23 from Carrot 2011-09-16 06:57:15 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> > All callee saved registers should never changed after function call. Here fp
> > has been changed is not because it is after a function call, it is because
> >
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
