http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54625
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-22 08:06:55 UTC ---
Here is another example (this one triggers the same gcc_assert as in HJ's
regression report):
markus@x4 moz_lto_debug % < test.i
float a;
double sin ();
update_filter ()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
Bug #: 54667
Summary: [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:39:44 UTC ---
The dump for comment 0 shows (with -fdump-tree-original):
MAIN__ ()
{
void * cself;
struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p self;
&self = (struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p *)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47099
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andris.pavenis at iki dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:53:51 UTC ---
The question is if it is really valid. At first sight both F03 and F08 only
specify that FPTR, i.e. the second argument to C_F_POINTER, shall be a pointer
with INTENT(O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
le-targets=all --with-bugurl=http://bugs.gentoo.org/
--with-pkgversion='Gentoo 4.8.0_pre'
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0-pre 20120922 (experimental) commit
f09a218261ba473738ad45f2c643957523019a17 (Gentoo 4.8.0_pre)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 10:32:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Andrew, have you tried your test case with any other compilers?
ifort 12.1 and Oracle Studio 12.3 seem to accept the test case without erro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2012-09-22
10:32:58 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Sep 22 10:32:51 2012
New Revision: 191640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191640
Log:
2012-09-22 Thomas König
PR fortran/54599
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54668
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xarthisius.kk at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Bug #: 54669
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed: BB 5
last statement has incorrectly set lp with
-fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-22
12:37:41 UTC ---
*** Bug 47616 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54668
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-22
12:40:00 UTC ---
As a duplicate of pr45440, a work around is (see pr45440#c4):
allocate(b(3), source=a)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54372
--- Comment #6 from Kohei Takahashi 2012-09-22 13:06:32
UTC ---
I tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and works fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 13:18:31 UTC ---
Moreover there is a typo in the documentation of C_F_POINTER:
Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-22
14:22:46 UTC ---
With very slightly modified testcase:
int a[10];
void
foo (void)
{
int x;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1;)
{
int b[3];
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
b[i] = a[i];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Starke
2012-09-22 16:00:03 UTC ---
It seems to be partly a gcc autoconfig macro issue. Seeing the following in
gcc/acinclude.m4
dnl See if symbolic links work and if not, try to substitute either hard links
or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2012-09-22
16:46:35 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 22 16:46:29 2012
New Revision: 191644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191644
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
ace --enable-e500_double
--with-long-double-128
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120922 (experimental) [trunk revision 191643] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. ~/ice.i -O
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'TrioWriteDouble':
/home/ryan/ice.i:47:20: warning: incompatible implicit declaratio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Benson 2012-09-22
16:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > While it would be nontrivial to fully enforce these constraints by a runtime
> > check, I think they might effectively m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Benson 2012-09-22
17:02:06 UTC ---
Thanks for clarifying this. It does look like this is invalid according to the
standard. I'll think of another way to do what I was trying to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-22
17:08:08 UTC ---
Incomplete but mostly finished draft patches:
https://userpage.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/final/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-22
18:38:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The only other compiler I have access to is ifort 11.1 (which also accepts
> it),
> so that doesn't add much unfortunately.
As do crayftn and PGI, however
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
Bug #: 54671
Summary: gcc 4.7.2 -Wl,--no-ctors-in-init-array causes binutils
test failure, works with 4.7.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
--- Comment #1 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com 2012-09-22 19:00:06 UTC ---
gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.7.2/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.2/lto-wrapper
Ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 19:02:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3:
>
> CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT (IN) argument. Its value
>shall be
> *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Benson 2012-09-22
19:39:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3:
> >
> > CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT (IN) argument. Its
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54606
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-22
19:46:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> References cannot be assigned in C++, your code just triggers undefined
> behavior.
More to the point it is not undefined behavior but rather:
a =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-22
20:03:59 UTC ---
It happens in cunrolli pass. It might be propagate_constants_for_unrolling.
It seems we eventually end up removing BB 9 and 11, which might be wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-22
21:48:01 UTC ---
>
> interface.c: gfc_compare_derived_types BUG
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-22
21:57:52 UTC ---
If I apply the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/resolve.c2012-09-17 15:50:08.0 +0200
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c2012-09-22 18:02:47.0 +02
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-22
22:26:37 UTC ---
I think this code:
/* (LTU/GEU (PLUS a C) C), where C is constant, can be simplified to
(GEU/LTU a -C). Likewise for (LTU/GEU (PLUS a C) a). */
Is what is causing th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54672
Bug #: 54672
Summary: \x00 hexadecimal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 22:29:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > I would assume that this is invalid, since the declaration of
> > compute_routine's
> > interface is somehow '
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54673
Bug #: 54673
Summary: [SH] Unnecessary sign extension of logical operation
results
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53922
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
Bug #: 54674
Summary: ICE in build2_stat, at tree.c:3835
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andris.pavenis at iki dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-23
06:48:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Sep 23 06:48:48 2012
New Revision: 191649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191649
Log:
2012-09-23 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-23
06:48:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Sep 23 06:48:48 2012
New Revision: 191649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191649
Log:
2012-09-23 Tobias Burnus
55 matches
Mail list logo
