https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83608
Bug ID: 83608
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in convert_move, at expr.c:229 in
GIMPLE store merging pass
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83609
Bug ID: 83609
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in read_complex_part at
gcc/expr.c:3202
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83591
--- Comment #4 from Tony E Lewis ---
Thanks for the response. That all sounds sensible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #21 from Tony E Lewis ---
Many thanks to all for the thought, time and work you're devoting to this
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83607
Sergey Semushin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Predelnik at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83607
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, because not all enumeration types behave like the integers:
enum E : unsigned char { };
namespace std {
template<> struct equal_to {
bool operator()(E l, E r) const noexcept {
return ((uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
--- Comment #14 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #13)
> Created attachment 42974 [details]
> Tentative patch with testcase
>
> Currently doing:
> - bootstrap and reg test on x86_64, and
> - build & libgomp regtest on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83607
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bad example, because the BM searcher uses std::equal_to, not
std::equal_to, but overloading operator==(E, E) would still break the
searcher if it used the array optimization for enum E.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
Bug ID: 83610
Summary: __builtin_expect sometimes is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Code was compiled with "-O3 -march=core2 -mtune=generic"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #22 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
glibc test built with WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS unset are also almost not
affected:
# diff -U0 ../glibc-orig.log ../glibc-no-word.log
--- ../glibc-orig.log 2017-12-28 10:49:36.535635523 +
+++ ../
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83567
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Dec 28 13:22:36 2017
New Revision: 256019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-28 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83567
* trans-expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83611
Bug ID: 83611
Summary: [PDT] Assignment of parameterized types causes double
free error in runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83612
Bug ID: 83612
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ubsan/object-size-9.c -O2 output
pattern test
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83612
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83612
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64078#c7 (PR64078 -
FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c):
...
I suppose the output scan fails because of the ''
messages.
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83611
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83612
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Tentative patch, similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227886&root=gcc&view=rev :
...
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/object-size-9.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/object-size-9.c
index e0a2980..41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 42976
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42976&action=edit
Patch which works for minloc(...,dim=1) for rank-one arrays
This is a proof-of-concept patch for minloc which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83606
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81773
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
--- Comment #16 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42977
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42977&action=edit
Updated patch, with both openacc and openmp testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #17 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
Bug ID: 83613
Summary: [8 Regression] Executing
gfortran.dg/inquire_internal.f90 hangs on darwin after
r255621
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
--- Comment #16 from Tim Rentsch ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> -pedantic is not designed to reject all programs that are not strictly
> conforming, but to enable emitting all _required_ diagnostics. I
> don't think a convers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83614
Bug ID: 83614
Summary: deduction failure for template-template argument with
trailing template parameter pack
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 57127, which changed state.
Bug 57127 Summary: gfortran gives unintended warning on uninitialized optional
dummy array of undetermined size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57127
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57127
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52370
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||AstroFloyd at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #10 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Thu Dec 28 18:49:12 2017
New Revision: 256021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/83344 Don't set bogus constant value
This patch does not fix P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 33884, which changed state.
Bug 33884 Summary: data-initialized unused variables not detected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33884
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33884
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30438
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 33884 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83548
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Dec 28 20:19:01 2017
New Revision: 256022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR Fortran/83548
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83548
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Dec 28 20:43:38 2017
New Revision: 256025
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256025&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR Fortran/83548
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83548
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83615
Bug ID: 83615
Summary: A reference binding involving a qualification
conversion is rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Can you try this and report:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/inquire.c b/libgfortran/io/inquire.c
index 6ba1224d77c..fefe6e9a165 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/inquire.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/inquire.c
@@ -47,9 +47,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Can you try this and report:
> ...
It does not work without the patch
--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/unit.c 2017-12-14 10:02:30.0 +0100
+++ libgfortran/io/unit.c 2017-12-29 00:28:42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > Can you try this and report:
> > ...
>
> It does not work without the patch
>
> --- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/unit.c 2017-12-14 10:02:30.0 +01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
--- snip ---
>
> I dont understand why you did not have those two lines in your source tree.
> These were part of my previous patch committed.
Oh I see, for some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82092
--- Comment #9 from Ryan Schmidt ---
Is it safe to use the patch? Will a gcc built with the patch produce correct
code?
If so, I would like to include it in MacPorts so that I can update our gcc8
port to a newer version. Because of this problem,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am traveling abroad now, sorry I cannot help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83616
Bug ID: 83616
Summary: [GCOV] The 'goto' statement in nested for loop leads
the label is wrongly marked as not executed in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83617
Bug ID: 83617
Summary: [GCOV] A goto statement in nested loop is wrongly
marked as executed twice.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78983
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
Using 7.2, I still see an ICE with the reduced example from Comment 3:
$ gfortran -fcoarray=lib -c bug-78983.f90
bug-78983.f90:24:0:
end module
internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83618
Bug ID: 83618
Summary: _rdpid_u32 doesn't work on 64-bit targets as gas
expects the 64-bit register
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
53 matches
Mail list logo
