https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65118
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I'm afraid I don't have an ability to reproduce it anymore. As nobody
complained over the years, I think it makes sense to close it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98273
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efd08ad579a1dea6409bd280cb5c263ed0849839
commit r11-6038-gefd08ad579a1dea6409bd280cb5c263ed0849839
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98273
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98275
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cab1b0ebc00ea53040afcbe4b91e653a87915092
commit r11-6040-gcab1b0ebc00ea53040afcbe4b91e653a87915092
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98275
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98286
Bug ID: 98286
Summary: g++ accepts 'void d(void) { typename foo; }' as valid
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
--- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Yes.
>
> For a LIM testcase an example with a memcpy might be more practically
> relevant.
>
> For refactoring I'd start with classifying the unanalyzable refs a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.5.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98274
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:69bd5d473d22157d0737fc20e98eb3347cbd6ab5
commit r11-6041-g69bd5d473d22157d0737fc20e98eb3347cbd6ab5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98274
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
Levy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49543|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Andrea Corallo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41a2a54476cba88376c4b30ca8b94b4a088a66ce
commit r10-9153-g41a2a54476cba88376c4b30ca8b94b4a088a66ce
Author: Andrea Corallo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98282
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98275
--- Comment #4 from Pekka S ---
(I wrote this prior the ticked was modifed and the patch committed.)
Thanks.
Applied the patch on the latest trunk, built aarch64-none-gcc cross compiler
(mingw64). Using -flto=auto -v reports `LTO parallelism l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
For completeness, the LLVM 'main' patch was backported/cherry-picked for
LLVM 11.0.1 with commit 700baa009dc685a0adc5f94d258be4ae24742471
Regarding the .section discussion, see also last few comments in
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65118
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98108
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf4ed3b41594b6935a337fe0aaf8149eadf88751
commit r11-6072-gcf4ed3b41594b6935a337fe0aaf8149eadf88751
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78173
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa452a843d26a64a5ca0fd7c17ea1bd6e1b81a69
commit r11-6074-gfa452a843d26a64a5ca0fd7c17ea1bd6e1b81a69
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90782
--- Comment #6 from getchar_gnu at hotmail dot com ---
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/qzG9jj
template
struct bar {
template
bar(B& obj, void(B::*f)(A...)const=&B::operator()){}
};
int main() {
const auto f1 = [](){};
bar f8(f1);
}
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98269
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stli at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97549
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There are also errors when compiling with the Intel compiler and tbb from
oneAPI (aka tbb 2021.1.1):
In file included from /usr/include/c++/10/pstl/parallel_backend.h(16),
from /usr/includ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97549
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> There are also errors when compiling with the Intel compiler and tbb from
> oneAPI (aka tbb 2021.1.1):
Which is documented as not working, due to API changes
d5d473d2-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20201215 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98288
Bug ID: 98288
Summary: Accidental equality of classes templated by pointer to
local static constant of templated function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98287
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98288
--- Comment #1 from Matthieu M ---
The above program leads to an ICE on gcc (trunk): https://godbolt.org/z/dGe1T6,
from SO user https://stackoverflow.com/users/4832499/passer-by.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98289
Bug ID: 98289
Summary: [x86] Suboptimal optimization of stack usage when
function call to cold function is not needed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98290
Bug ID: 98290
Summary: run-time error with optional character arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98290
Vivek Rao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> So, for start I think we should do:
> 1) query->range_of_expr (m_index_range, m_index_expr, swtch)
>where query is address of gimple_ranger passed down fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98290
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98210
--- Comment #4 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Since gold is not built by default, should we just disable SHF_GNU_RETAIN
support if gold has been built at all, for Binutils versions without the gold
patch.
There's 2 weeks between the GCC "used" imply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98210
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Since gold has been fixed now, you can add a check for broken gold and set
HAVE_GAS_SHF_GNU_RETAIN to 0 for broken gold.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98291
Bug ID: 98291
Summary: multiple scalar FP accumulators auto-vectorize worse
than scalar, including vector load + merge instead of
scalar + high-half insert
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98292
Bug ID: 98292
Summary: Optimize away C return; in function returning
integral/pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293
Bug ID: 98293
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in get_subregion_within_ctor, at
analyzer/store.cc:494
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98294
Bug ID: 98294
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in calculate_line_spans, at
diagnostic-show-locus.c:1296
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
Bug ID: 98295
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in verify_ctor_sanity, at
cp/constexpr.c:4312
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98296
Bug ID: 98296
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98297
Bug ID: 98297
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in
cp_parser_elaborated_type_specifier, at
cp/parser.c:19653
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98298
Bug ID: 98298
Summary: [11 regression] g++.dg/pch/system-1.C assembly
comparison fails after r11-6072
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98289
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That particular change is of course correct, but all that means that
shrink-wrapping at least on this testcase doesn't work with
-freorder-blocks-and-partition which is on by default.
Compiling it with -O2 -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98289
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/shrink-wrap.c.jj2020-07-28 15:39:09.983756571 +0200
+++ gcc/shrink-wrap.c 2020-12-15 19:15:00.213861334 +0100
@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ can_get_prologue (basic_block pro, HARD_
edge e;
edge_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98296
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-15
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98297
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98108
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:433703843b3fa76bcbba4f1fd782c7ef319b64a8
commit r11-6091-g433703843b3fa76bcbba4f1fd782c7ef319b64a8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98298
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98299
Bug ID: 98299
Summary: Failure to optimize sub loop into modulo-based pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98299
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
At the very least, it seems like a worthwhile pattern to recognize in -O3, even
if only to avoid vectorizing it, i.e. have similar effects to what happens if
you add `if (n >= 1000) __builtin_unreachable();`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98299
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
PS: The optimization seems to already occur for simpler cases such as powers of
2, e.g. :
int f1(int n)
{
while (n >= 64)
n -= 64;
return n;
}
is optimized into `return (n <= 63) ? n : (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
Bug ID: 98300
Summary: GCC 11 failed to build on Windows 10. I guess the new
module completely breaks this.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95372
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Playing around with the above patches, I found that the following now gets
rejected instead of an ICE:
program p
type t
integer :: a = 1
end type t
type(t), parameter :: z(3) = t()
ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
fdlbxtqi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-msys2-mingw-w64,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #2 from fdlbxtqi ---
Here was an older version (GCC11 20201204) that can be used for bootstrapping.
Please, thank you for fixing this issue ASAP.
https://bitbucket.org/ejsvifq_mabmip/mingw-gcc/src/master/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Hm, I thought there was sufficient #ifing to prevent that ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #4 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #3)
> Hm, I thought there was sufficient #ifing to prevent that ...
Try the compiler I build before to guard against this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #5 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #3)
> Hm, I thought there was sufficient #ifing to prevent that ...
BTW. I tried the example you showed on the GCC module webpage on Linux. It
fails to compile. why?
cqw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49769&action=edit
potential patch
Care to give this patch a try?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
Bug ID: 98301
Summary: random_init() may be non-conforming
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #7 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #6)
> Created attachment 49769 [details]
> potential patch
>
> Care to give this patch a try?
I will help you. no problem.
BTW. Welcome to join discord so I can show you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49770&action=edit
random_init() patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #8 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #6)
> Created attachment 49769 [details]
> potential patch
>
> Care to give this patch a try?
make[2]: Leaving directory
'/home/unlvs/mingw-gcc-mcf-gthread/src/build-x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98284
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=98302
Bug ID: 98302
Summary: [11 Regression] Wrong code on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49771&action=edit
test-case 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49772&action=edit
test case 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98303
Bug ID: 98303
Summary: [x86] Bad register allocation when reproducing
assembly code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98277
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36c9a3fe3f3c200ad3937d00d339b7269cf07adb
commit r11-6099-g36c9a3fe3f3c200ad3937d00d339b7269cf07adb
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Tue De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98277
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0bdf3a9069f8f42b2ab196db2c4d75937722646
commit r10-9154-gd0bdf3a9069f8f42b2ab196db2c4d75937722646
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98277
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85b55ae6e87bd5cf6a23175065f634614e96a243
commit r9-9116-g85b55ae6e87bd5cf6a23175065f634614e96a243
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98277
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96094
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d41b097350d3c5d03824ea19520cd3b4430c9e62
commit r11-6100-gd41b097350d3c5d03824ea19520cd3b4430c9e62
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98304
Bug ID: 98304
Summary: Failure to optimize bitwise arithmetic pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98284
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 09:01:15PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Steve,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-December/055427.html
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98305
Bug ID: 98305
Summary: Incomprehensible -Wmismatched-new-delete warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98306
Bug ID: 98306
Summary: invalid use of incomplete type 'struct grammar'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98306
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #9 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #6)
> Created attachment 49769 [details]
> potential patch
>
> Care to give this patch a try?
hello??
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It would seem reasonable to have options both for the case of warning
about all VLA declarations, and more specifically for the case of
allocating a VLA on the stack. The diagnostics for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97920
--- Comment #4 from xin liu ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> Paul is correct, the state of the pointers is undefined.
>
> What you can do to correct this is to use
>
> module m
> type t1
> real, dimension(:), pointer :: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97920
--- Comment #5 from xin liu ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Confirmed with valgrind. At least as old as 4.9.0.
>
> Hi,
>
> From a quick perusal of the standard, I find in F2003 16.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70863
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #50 from Jim Wilson ---
The combine change is inconvenient. We can't do that in stage3, and it means
we need to make sure that this doesn't break other targets.
If the combine change is a good idea, then I think you can just modify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #51 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 49773
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49773&action=edit
untested fix to use instead of levy's combine.c patch
Needs testing without Levy's patch to make sure it doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98307
Bug ID: 98307
Summary: use "allocatable" instead of "pointer" (forall_3.f90)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98308
Bug ID: 98308
Summary: ICe in in vect_slp_analyze_node_operations, at
tree-vect-slp.c:3764 with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98309
Bug ID: 98309
Summary: [AVX512] Missing expander for ldexpm3.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
