https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79474
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 18 07:24:50 2017
New Revision: 253841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253841&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79474
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79474
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81422
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
Confirmed, I can see that tests have started passing on my side. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82593
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
>
> Eric Gallager changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68884
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 18 07:43:06 2017
New Revision: 253843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/68884
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68884
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69057
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 18 07:53:27 2017
New Revision: 253844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253844&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/69057
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Bug ID: 82600
Summary: Address of local variable returned
[-Werror=return-local-addr] when building
mozilla-central
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69057
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601
Bug ID: 82601
Summary: missing uninitialized warning with -O0 / -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82545
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Oct 18 08:14:47 2017
New Revision: 253845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not put gimple stmt on an abnormal edge (PR sanitizer/82545).
2017-10-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, lsan_preinit.o shouldn't be linked into liblsan.so.*, either we should
just ignore it completely, or install and link in like asan_preinit.o or
tsan_preinit.o is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82585
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Probably one form is folded to &a[4] and p->a + 4 is not folded to &p->a[4].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #2 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
the command line:
/usr/bin/g++-8 -std=gnu++11 -o Unified_cpp_memory_build0.o -c
-I/root/firefox-gcc-last/obj-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/dist/system_wrappers -include
/root/firefox-gcc-last/config/gcc_hidden.h -DDE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73650
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82550
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 18 08:55:27 2017
New Revision: 253848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82550
* trans_decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I think this bug can be closed now: it was fixed for gcc 6+ and gcc 5.4+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82545
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression] -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #3 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
Created attachment 42389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42389&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80991
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Bug ID: 82602
Summary: IRA considers volatile asm to be moveable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
--- Comment #5 from Mason ---
Slightly smaller testcase, similar to bug 80907.
extern int M[16];
void foo(int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j)
M[i+j] = 0;
}
$ gcc-7 -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82599
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 18 09:20:31 2017
New Revision: 253851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/82598
* simple-object.c (handle_lto_debug_sections)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82596, 82588, 82585, 82583,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Dep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Bug ID: 82603
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in ifcvt_local_dce w/ -O2
-ftree-loop-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
void *b[10];
template
void **
foo (int x)
{
void **a = b;
return &a[x];
}
void **
bar (int x)
{
return foo <0> (x);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Petr Cvek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petrcvekcz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Bug ID: 82575
Summary: [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim,
ld test liblto-17 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66031
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slash.tmp at free dot fr
--- Comment #2 from Mas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I'll have a look.
Oh, I already have a patch...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 42393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42393&action=edit
Prototype patch
Attached patch generates:
foobar:
cmpq%rdx, %rdi
sbbq%rcx, %rsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|uros at gcc dot gnu.org|ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nice. I wonder about one further thing.
With your patch, we generate e.g. in f0:
xorq%rdx, %rdi
xorq%rcx, %rsi
xorl%eax, %eax
orq %rsi, %rdi
sete%a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> i.e. for the flags we first clear %eax and then setX %al, but for f2
> cmpq%rdi, %rdx
> sbbq%rsi, %rcx
> setb%al
> movz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The fact that flags is live is the reason why the
(define_peephole2
[(parallel [(set (reg FLAGS_REG) (match_operand 0))
(match_operand 4)])
(set (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42394&action=edit
gcc8-pr82580-peephole2.patch
Untested incremental patch with the 2 peepholes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So maybe somebody should submit the patch to the mailing lists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #7 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, perhaps powerpc64, aarch64 or other targets could benefit from similar
approach. Shall we clone this PR for those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #8 from Andi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andi from comment #0)
> > Building firefox with gcc8 trunk i get this error:
>
> This is a warning, not an error.
>
> If you use -Werror to cause compila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42393|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryxi at stu dot xidian.edu.cn
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
By the way, in kernel code (compiler-gcc.h) there is a comment:
/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
So the developer(s) actually think "volatile" is u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> I'm still not convinced this is a bug. For example, all kernel code
> uses `asm volatile ("" ::: "memory")` as barrier to stop GCC to reorder code
> through it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #7 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
There is no intention to make "asm volatile" a barrier, as you get with a
memory clobber. The intention is to stop it moving past other volatile code
(such as other asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.3
Summary|[8 Regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:35:26 2017
New Revision: 253856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253856&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82591
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #23 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> So maybe somebody should submit the patch to the mailing lists.
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00045.html
Sorry I didn't d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think I understand the problem better now, after a few experiments, and a
discussion with proot's author.
The testcase finishes with a call to execute_command_line with wait=.false, so
the main process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #7)
> There is no intention to make "asm volatile" a barrier, as you get with a
> memory clobber. The intention is to stop it moving past other volatile code
> (such as oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10740
etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etienne_lorrain at yahoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
Bug ID: 82604
Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50%
performance regression with trunk@253679 when
ftree-parallelize-loops is used
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82574
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:56:15 2017
New Revision: 253857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253857&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82574
* tree-loop-distribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82264
--- Comment #6 from etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr ---
fixed for my testcase (tested gcc version 7.2.1 20171012), can be closed.
Thanks, Etienne.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235
Mukesh Kapoor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mukesh.kapoor at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You cannot do that if you do not know what foo() does (it could for
example contain another volatile asm). But yes, the code as written
is not so great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
Bug ID: 82605
Summary: ICE in insert_parameter_exprs, at fortran/decl.c:3154
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
using cached values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Bug ID: 82606
Summary: ICE in gfc_extract_int, at fortran/expr.c:641
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
BTW, with an invalid modification (--> fortran/decl.c:3244) :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
type t(a, b, *)
integer, kind :: a
integer, len :: b
real(a) :: r(b)
end type
type(t(8, 3)) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82607
Bug ID: 82607
Summary: SPARC Linux: go frontend runs infinitely on 5.4.0,
6.4.0 and 7.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:44:27 2017
New Revision: 253862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253862&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/82556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:47:38 2017
New Revision: 253863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253863&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/82556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #10)
> Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
> And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
> using cached values.
But you *want*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Bug ID: 82608
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds VLA index
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:54:18 2017
New Revision: 253865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253865&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/82233
* gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> Removing the last
>call execute_command_line(command , wait=.false., exitstat=i)
> or moving it before
>call execute_command_line(command ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
Bug ID: 82609
Summary: missing -Warrray-bounds on an argument in parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #1)
> BTW, with an invalid modification (--> fortran/decl.c:3244) :
>
>
> $ cat z4.f90
> program p
>type t(a, b, *)
> integer, kind :: a
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0)
Mein lieber Steinmetz,
Würden sie bitte die Überschriften dieser Problembenachrichtigungen mit "PDT"
voranstellen und sie mit dem "Meta-Bug" PR82173 verknüpfen.
Vie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82478
--- Comment #5 from Corey Tabaka ---
>From what I can tell the standard is not very explicit about the access rules
in the argument list of a partial specialization specifically. However, there
are examples in the spec that demonstrate friend acc
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
