https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78830
Bug ID: 78830
Summary: std::prev accepts ForwardIterator-s
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78824
Freddie Chopin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freddie_chopin at op dot pl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78764
--- Comment #3 from Rin Okuyama ---
Thank you very much for your notification. I overlooked both fix and PR 71216.
I'm so sorry for bothering you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71632
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71632
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 16 09:38:18 2016
New Revision: 243737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-16 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/71632
* exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 16 09:40:03 2016
New Revision: 243738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-16 Richard Biener
PR c++/71694
* langhooks-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> You would need to make sure it uses a xmalloc based allocator first or at
> least calls xmalloc_failed upon allocation failure, otherwise it will be a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
>
> --- Comment #8 from James Greenhalgh ---
> Is anyone currently looking at thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have no idea what the Go FE is doing, in the middle-end there are indeed 3-4
spots that use std::string in one file, but I'd just call it a mistake.
The reason for ensuring xmalloc_failed is used is to get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Can't we insert on the edge and commit edge insertions late? Or simply
> split the block for this case?
Well, for the case of calls there typically are 2 edges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78772
--- Comment #9 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #8)
> Looking at the 2011 ISO C standard, section 6.5 Expressions, paragraph 7,
> says "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Sorry, correct wording is that Ruby 2.3 does not survive its regression tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
>
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Sorry, correct wording is that Ruby 2.3 does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78772
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
When in doubt you could use -fno-strict-aliasing.
And sorry, but this is not the right place to discuss the aliasing rules of the
standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
> >
> > --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216
--- Comment #7 from Rin Okuyama ---
I'm the submitter of Bug 78764. I confirmed that my problem has been
resolved on gcc-5-branch. Let me thank you again for fixing it.
However, I have a question on this fix. How about the case where
"-Wa,-mXXX"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78810
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> They invoke undefined behavior by using misaligned accesses, see:
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11831
>
> It was fixed once, but they dropped the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78824
--- Comment #4 from Piotr ---
Freddie it is about avr-gcc not arm-gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I don't know what exactly you want to clean up with std::string
Well, my main motivation was to get rid of some statically-sized buffers (used
for erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78830
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why is it ill-formed?
By my reading it's undefined, which does mean we can reject it anyway, but I
don't see anything to make it ill-formed that would require rejecting it
unconditionally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40346&action=edit
draft patch
Here is a draft patch that implements what I had in mind (regtests cleanly).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 40346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40346
draft patch
Dunno, you can perhaps try it (put a breakpoint somewhere before you construct
the std::string, when you rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78824
--- Comment #5 from Freddie Chopin ---
Sure, more data points show that this is most likely a problem in a target
component, not in middle-end or c front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Dunno, you can perhaps try it (put a breakpoint somewhere before you
> construct the std::string, when you reach it, put a breakpoint on malloc and
> wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78817
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #15)
> Author: msebor
> Date: Fri Dec 16 02:57:22 2016
> New Revision: 243736
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243736&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR bootstrap/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78815
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In general, doesn't this whole memory issue severely limit the usefulness of
C++ as an implementation language for GCC? It seems to imply that we cannot use
*any* STL containers? Or do I misundersta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78824
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
Xavier Roche changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.1.0, 6.2.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> In general, doesn't this whole memory issue severely limit the usefulness of
> C++ as an implementation language for GCC? It seems to imply that we cannot
> use *any* STL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61636
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> best discuss this on the
> mailing list rather than in the PR where others can more easily see it and
> comment on it.
Agreed. Will do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, yet another option (and I'd say much more readable) is just using
build_message_string function, so
snprintf (errmsg, err_len, "Rank mismatch in argument '%s' (%i/%i)",
s1-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and yet another thing, if these messages is something you pass to the user,
then the fact that you mix up the diagnostic text with expanded arguments
precludes translation. With using std::stringstream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> BTW, yet another option (and I'd say much more readable) is just using
> build_message_string function
Yes, I think that's a good suggestion. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78817
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-12-16, at 6:55 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please revert this - I've rejected similar patches from Martin Liska recently.
> You just slow down the compiler for no good reaso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Oleg,
> Nick, maybe you have an idea what's wrong here?
It is almost certainly a bug in the RX specific parts of the libgcc
configuration
What happens is that GCC calls the function _COM_CONVd32s to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72828
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78830
--- Comment #2 from Andrzej Krzemienski ---
Sorry, you are correct. As per [res.on.functions], passing types that do not
satisfy the requirements is a UB, and therefore a well formed program. GCC is
standard-compliant in this respect.
So, I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78831
Bug ID: 78831
Summary: [nvptx] -mgomp -Os init_softstack_frame ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78819
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Dec 16 14:19:44 2016
New Revision: 243746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243746&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78819
* tree-vrp.c (find_switch_as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78832
Bug ID: 78832
Summary: [7 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with
-fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78831
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65618
James Cowgill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdsandiford at googlemail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65618
--- Comment #9 from James Cowgill ---
Created attachment 40348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40348&action=edit
pr-65618.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78833
Bug ID: 78833
Summary: Misleading IOMSG after failed WRITE(...,POS=) on
unconnected formatted stream file
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78833
--- Comment #1 from mecej4 at operamail dot com ---
Created attachment 40349
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40349&action=edit
Test program for reproducing bug in IOMSG
Same source code as in main message, for your convenienc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40350&action=edit
patch using build_message_string
So here is another patch, similar to the one in comment 5, but usin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 40350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40350
patch using build_message_string
Some comments:
1) this still doesn't solve the translations issue in many places
(gfc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:14:47 2016
New Revision: 243752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[sve-branch] Backport fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:14:47 2016
New Revision: 243752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[sve-branch] Backport fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:14:47 2016
New Revision: 243752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[sve-branch] Backport fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78832
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78833
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Some comments:
Thanks!
> 1) this still doesn't solve the translations issue in many places
> (gfc_compare_interfaces etc.);
True. I don't wanna o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
There are several PRs open for translation: pr52274 and links.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> There are several PRs open for translation: pr52274 and links.
Thanks of the hint. I think in particular PR 38573 is relevant for our
discussi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78819
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Thanks Marek for fixing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:57:43 2016
New Revision: 243753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/78408
* tree-ssa-ccp.c: Include tree-dfa.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78834
Bug ID: 78834
Summary: ICE if I try to opt-out from -flto using pragma
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, lto
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78814
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed, started with 4.6.0.
?? With 4.6 and 4.7 I get
Fatal Error: Unlimited polymorphism at (1) not yet supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78834
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78772
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
This language has been in the standard since ANSI C 89/ISO C 90.
>extern char buf[32];
>int *a = (int *)&(buf[16]);
>int result = *a; //is this ok? or we have to use memcpy(&result, &buf[16],
>>sizeof(int))?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78830
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78832
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40351
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40351&action=edit
gcc7-pr78832.patch
Untested fix. I'm sure this started with r243611.
The problem is that gsi_remove updates g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78835
Bug ID: 78835
Summary: [7 regression] ICE with -fdebug-types-section and
member function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #2)
>
> It is almost certainly a bug in the RX specific parts of the libgcc
> configuration
>
> It is unlikely that the actual code for the _COM_CONVd32s function is w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78829
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note that some of these (e.g. VLAs) are extensions in C++ as well. And
some include features beyond the standard ones (e.g. _Complex is standard
C99, but the syntax for complex constants,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
Pedro Alves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #19 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
--- Comment #20 from Pedro Alves ---
And in addition, since GCC is already using new/new[] to heap allocate its own
classes, GCC is _already_ inconsistent with allocation failure -- if one of
those currently fails, you'll end up with a C++ except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78817
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #18)
> The change didn't fix build on hppa-linux:
This should be fixed in the patch referenced in comment #16, though the patch
is yet to be reviewed and judging by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78835
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
started failing with:
r240578 | rguenth | 2016-09-28 07:30:19 -0700 (Wed, 28 Sep 2016) | 17 lines
2016-09-28 Richard Biener
* dwarf2out.c (struct die_struct): Add removed flag.
(lookup_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/7 Regression]|[5 Regression] Compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE at |[5/6 Regression] ICE at -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65618
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72828
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
With 78835 patched using Jakub's diff in comment 1, this no longer ices.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78757
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 19:41:13 2016
New Revision: 243761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/78757
* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78622
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 16 20:27:51 2016
New Revision: 243765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-16 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/78622
* io.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71226
--- Comment #4 from Nick Matteo ---
Appears to be fixed in GCC 6.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78836
Bug ID: 78836
Summary: ICE in get_source_location_for_substring, at
input.c:1461
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71972
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbug at kundor dot org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71972
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at tnix dot eu
--- Comment #8 from J
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
