https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71980
A. Wilcox (awilfox) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71702
A. Wilcox (awilfox) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||awilfox at adelielinux dot org
---
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160722
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71980
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71505
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71702
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tony at kelman dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71980
Bug ID: 71980
Summary: [5] libraw on x86_64-linux-musl causes ICE in
vect_analyze_data_ref_accesses, at
tree-vect-data-refs.c:2596
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71978
--- Comment #4 from Rian Quinn ---
Is this it? Never done that before:
https://github.com/rianquinn/hypervisor/tree/expression_support/tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71978
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you attach the preprocessed source that goes with dwarf expressions you
> listed? Also can you attach the assembly code that is produced?
What I meant is pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71978
--- Comment #2 from Rian Quinn ---
We throw here:
https://github.com/rianquinn/hypervisor/blob/expression_support/bfvmm/src/vmcs/src/vmcs_intel_x64.cpp#L514
The following is were the issue is (meaning the unwinder unwinds until it hits
this func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71978
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source that goes with dwarf expressions you
listed? Also can you attach the assembly code that is produced?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71976
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> this is r15 = 40; r18 = r18 << r16; So r18 << 40 which is undefined as 40 >
> 16 so GCC decides why not just provide r18 here.
Actually I take that back. I misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71976
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #2)
> Bugzille does not allow me to attach the .combine dump (for reference).
>
> ...anyway the relevant part of the dump is:
>
> In .242r.ud_dce there is the foll
to-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160722 (experimental) [trunk revision 238631] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
sma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71978
Bug ID: 71978
Summary: -mrealignstack and the unwinder
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
Roger Pack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogerpack2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63151
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55922
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63151
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71774
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 66617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71972
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70709
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70778
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
Bug ID: 71977
Summary: powerpc64: Use VSR when operating on float and integer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71738
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01505.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71350
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jul 22 18:53:11 2016
New Revision: 238665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238665&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/71935
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71973
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71976
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 38955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38955&action=edit
bug-combin.c.243r.combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71515
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71675
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 22 18:32:08 2016
New Revision: 238664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71675 - __atomic_compare_exchange_n returns wrong type for typed en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin15 with 16Gb of RAM and ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
max locked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71675
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71976
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Bugzille does not allow me to attach the .combine dump (for reference).
...anyway the relevant part of the dump is:
In .242r.ud_dce there is the following right shift insn:
(insn 51 50 52 2 (set (reg:QI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71976
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 38954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38954&action=edit
bug-combin.c.242r.ud_dce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71976
Bug ID: 71976
Summary: [avr] insn-combiner deletes a live 64-bit shift
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Not quite as radical, but could also help avoid quite a few
errors in front-end optimization:
ndex: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71975
Gert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38951|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71975
Bug ID: 71975
Summary: In c++11/14 mode whitespaces are ignored between enum
or class type name and ::
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71576
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69731
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71748
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71952
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Prior to 5.1, gfortran only supported single-image coarray execution.
> Possibly it's a regression for behavior with -fcoarray=single,
> but the more important case is -fcoarray=lib.
-fcoarray=lib -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18046
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57346
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71973
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
the bug goes away, if the fork signature is correct.
extern "C"
int fork () __attribute__((nothrow));
void bar () throw()
{
fork ();
}
does the right thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71954
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71974
Bug ID: 71974
Summary: Warning: uninitialized variable with OpenMP nested
loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
bifg21.f90 is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> @Paul: Here is a suggestion.
>
> Feel free to use / modify / whatever this, I will not be
> able to submit a patch for the next two weeks or so.
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #6)
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks, you beat me to it!
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> PS Since I caused this regression, perhaps I should take it on :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
@Paul: Here is a suggestion.
Feel free to use / modify / whatever this, I will not be
able to submit a patch for the next two weeks or so.
Index: frontend-passes.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Steve,
Thanks, you beat me to it!
Cheers
Paul
PS Since I caused this regression, perhaps I should take it on :-)
On 22 July 2016 at 16:45, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71973
Bug ID: 71973
Summary: c++ handles built-in functions inconsistently
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71560
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71560
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:40:51 2016
New Revision: 238651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/71560 - union compound literal initializes wrong union field
gcc/Cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 67681, which changed state.
Bug 67681 Summary: Missed vectorization: induction variable used after loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
What|Removed |Added
---
=g++-trunk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160722 (ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71807
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for regressions before closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71807
--- Comment #7 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:21:10 2016
New Revision: 238650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-07-22 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71807
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:14:53 2016
New Revision: 238649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-07-22 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68966
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Code that directly manipulates the representation of _Bool objects is
potentially buggy. GCC assumes that the representation is either all bits zero
(for false) or only the least significant bit is set (for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
--- Comment #15 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for regressions before closing as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71964
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:03:11 2016
New Revision: 238647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Move allocator in std::string and RB tree move constructors
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
--- Comment #14 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:01:48 2016
New Revision: 238646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-22 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> The problem here is that we want to do some dependency
> checking on something that is invalid.
>
> Maybe the best way would be to skip the whole pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
--- Comment #13 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Fri Jul 22 14:12:59 2016
New Revision: 238644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-22 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71971
Bug ID: 71971
Summary: Destructor of a global static variable in a shared
library is not called on dlclose
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71952
--- Comment #2 from Damian Rouson ---
Prior to 5.1, gfortran only supported single-image coarray execution. Possibly
it's a regression for behavior with -fcoarray=single, but the more important
case is -fcoarray=lib.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Fri Jul 22 13:15:31 2016
New Revision: 238640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-22 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||philipp.ochsendorf+gcc@gmai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71970
Bug ID: 71970
Summary: Exponential Compilation Time with Undefined Behavior
Sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Jul 22 13:08:19 2016
New Revision: 238639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix logic for when to emit .machine (PR7121
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If we do that, the question is when to (temporarily) enable the null pointer
check deletion (unless disabled explicitly with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
or from the target defaults, like AVR ...).
Because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71969
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38950&action=edit
gcc7-pr71969.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Fuka ---
I think we can mark this as INVALID then. The protected attribute is indeed not
an access attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> OMG, I forgot implicit none and the only clause.
module m
protected :: k
private :: k
integer k
end module
use m, only : k
implicit none
print *, k
end
is rejected by gfortran with
pr71967
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71969
Bug ID: 71969
Summary: Wrong setting of DECL_DISREGARD_INLINE_LIMITS in the C
FE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Fuka ---
OMG, I forgot implicit none and the only clause. Sorry. So is ifort wrong
in treating protected like an access statement?
Dne 22. 7. 2016 13:04 napsal uživatel "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71952
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71968
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> clang mangles differently and therefore avoids the issue:
>
> markus@x4 /tmp % clang++ -c b.cc && nm -C b.o
> U abort
> T b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> But in that case, why is the private access-stmt ignored?
It is not: consider
module m
protected :: k
private :: k
integer :: k = 42
end module
use m
integer :: k = 3
print *, k
end
'k' is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71968
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68080
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Fuka ---
OK, protected is not an access-stmt.
But in that case, why is the private access-stmt ignored?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71967
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo