https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80697
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #17 from Tristan Gingold ---
On 09/05/2017 17:41, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
>
> --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> You should add:
>>
>> --with-stage1-ldflags=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
On x86_64 vectorization is not profitable, likely due to the higher cost of
unaligned vector stores? But yes, I can see that vectorizing it as
_24 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(_2);
_25 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(preph
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
See also PR80117.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80699
Bug ID: 80699
Summary: multiple prevailing defs with -flto and -Wl,--wrap
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51859
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80699
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note The main reason why I marked it as a dup of bug 51859, is because bug
51887 was marked as one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51859
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Clang handles it fine BTW:
markus@x4 /tmp % cat test.c
void foo() {}
markus@x4 /tmp % cat test_warp.c
extern void foo();
void __wrap_foo() { foo(); };
int main() {}
markus@x4 /tmp % gcc -Wl,--wrap=fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80170
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80167
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:44:41 2017
New Revision: 247826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80113
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:44:41 2017
New Revision: 247826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80170
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:44:41 2017
New Revision: 247826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80171
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:44:41 2017
New Revision: 247826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:44:41 2017
New Revision: 247826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80094
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:44:41 2017
New Revision: 247826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 80113, which changed state.
Bug 80113 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in set_var_live_on_entry at
tree-ssa-live.c:1018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80113
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:53:45 2017
New Revision: 247827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80539
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:53:45 2017
New Revision: 247827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:53:45 2017
New Revision: 247827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 07:53:45 2017
New Revision: 247827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
Bug ID: 80700
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Bus error (on SPE target)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
==15430== Invalid read of size 1
==15430==at 0xB9161C: constrain_operands(int, unsigned long) (recog.c:2583)
==15430==by 0xB92204: extract_constrain_insn(rtx_insn*) (recog.c:2212)
==15430==by 0xA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
--- Comment #2 from Jos de Kloe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Why do you think this a bug in gfortran?
>
> The code compiles if you remove 'implicit none'. With it you have to define
> 'keylen' before using it, as in y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80145
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed May 10 08:34:02 2017
New Revision: 247828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-05-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/80145
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80145
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||46476
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
int mw;
int
j3 (int cn)
{
const int l7 = 0;
int wz;
for (wz = l7; wz < l7 + 3; ++wz)
while (mw != 0)
{
cn ^= -(wz == l7);
++mw;
}
return cn;
}
actually leads to IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80698
Jon Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Jon Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #8 from Jon G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #9 from Jon Grant ---
Happy to pay 200 USD bounty on a committed implementation for
-Wunreachable-code examples. Even just instructions just after "return" or
"break" etc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
Bug ID: 80701
Summary: gfortran ignores dead code after return statement
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79666
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79894
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79666
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79756
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69921
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #5 from Steven Noonan ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Please try
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ada/system-linux-x86.ads b/gcc/ada/system-linux-x86.ads
> index 22a212e..533d94e 100644
> --- a/gcc/ada/system-linux-x86.ads
> +++ b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79830
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It is induction variable optimization (-fivopts) that re-writes the main
> induction variable. We have
>
> Original cost 17 (complexity 2)
>
> Final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #59 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It does mention it:
"GCC has been updated to the latest revision of the procedure call standard
(AAPCS64) to provide support for paramater passing when data types have been
over-aligned."
There were two iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80671
--- Comment #2 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wilco
Date: Wed May 10 11:01:26 2017
New Revision: 247831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Move an use-after-free access before the delete.
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #60 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #59)
> And another thing was the bug
> mentioned here, introduced for arm32 in 5.2 and for aarch64 only during
> development of GCC 7. So there was no release for aa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80702
Bug ID: 80702
Summary: FRE fails to eliminate to leader dominating after
unreachable edge removal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
Created attachment 41337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41337&action=edit
limit perf buffer size
This patch allows parallelism upto 16 with the default setting.
Currently testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79830
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, I don't see problem in iv_elimination for the second loop, the .L7 one.
It eliminates three IVs into one IV. Well, the bloated loop header could be
further simplified, but it's another issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79067
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen ---
There's a separate fix for the random failures (or w/a increase
/proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb), see PR 77684
Not running the test on systems without FDO seems best. I don't think it does
anything useful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> To expand on that, I think we want to drop that call from there and instead
> be able to simplify somehow a SAVE_EXPR if after c_fully_fold or cp_fold it
> becom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||majerech.o at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80683
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > To expand on that, I think we want to drop that call from there and instead
> > be able to simplify somehow a SA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
--- Comment #2 from Gustavo Hime ---
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The compiler does generate a warning about the implicit interface if
> -Wimplicit-interface is turned on explicitly. I would suggest this should
> be on by defau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474
--- Comment #5 from Jan Smets ---
We get 'good' code on 7.1/trunk since
2016-04-29 Patrick Palka
tree-ssa-threadedge.c (simplify_control_stmt_condition): Split out into ...
simplify_control_stmt_condition_1): ... here. Rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR seems related to pr46476. While I am opposed to put any effort from the
gfortran side, if the flags mentioned in pr46476 are implemented in the
middle-end, they could benefit gfortran. Any obje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77644
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Wed May 10 13:26:09 2017
New Revision: 247835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77644
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77644
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Err, abs(A) < sqrt (B) isn't handled yet, no? Though I'm not sure if it's wise
to emit A * A < B for that given A * A is going to drop of quite some bits in
precision and likeliness to overflow / underflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #10 from Ondřej Majerech ---
That SO answer appears to be plain out wrong. Running your snippet on GCC 6.3.1
and 8.0.0 20170507, the program calls terminate for me, even with the cout <<
"Welcome" line included.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think probably these tests failed before the fix, stopped failing with the
fix, and started failing again when the fix was reverted. So the revision
number is a red herring -- we need to figure out when the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> I think probably these tests failed before the fix, stopped failing with the
> fix, and started failing again when the fix was reverted. So the revision
> number i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
--- Comment #4 from Gustavo Hime ---
Regarding this as a duplicate: on the one hand, it seems to be the same issue.
Whether the (any) warning is on by default or not is something that will always
be disputable, but the main issue is getting the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80703
Bug ID: 80703
Summary: Including breaks structured bindings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80703
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78939
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80703
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
I've submitted a patch [1] for the missing compiler barrier, but however please
note that the original ompi code and the example in comment #3 are wrong: in a
pattern like
while (*foo)
__atomic_thr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
This happens for all TARGET_EXPRs with the third operand (cleanup expression),
as an INIT_EXPR's rhs.
The cleanup sequence are pushed in gimplify_target_expr, which doesn't
handle TARGET_EXPRs as the INIT_EXPRs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These tests have flip-flopped between working and not several times recently.
I will got back through the logs and run some test to see if I can find where
things started to go bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jaak Ristioja from comment #9)
> [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/43892501/3919155
I don't think this is the same bug.
This bug seems happening because GCC created "constexpr B::B(void)", but
actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
--- Comment #10 from DIL ---
Thanks for fixing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #13 from Ondřej Majerech ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jaak Ristioja from comment #9)
> > [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/43892501/3919155
>
> I don't think this is the same bug.
> This bug seems happe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80687
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 10 15:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80687
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 10 15:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80687
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80687
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Might want to backport the 8.0 patch to gcc-7, but only
after the dust from the regressions this caused has settled.
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
