https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85547
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85547
--- Comment #2 from Walter Spector ---
Third variant. This one messes up NAG and PGI too:
wws@w6ws-4:/tmp$ cat testch3.f90
program testch
implicit none
character(:), allocatable :: path(:)
path = 'xyz/'
path = (/ character(16) :: &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85547
--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector ---
Slightly different test case - using allocatable string length instead of the
trims. However the same problems are evident:
program testch
implicit none
character(:), allocatable :: path
path =
// "forty two" /) )
contains
subroutine print_strings (s)
character(*), intent(in) :: s(:)
integer :: i
do, i=1, size(s)
print *, i, '>', s(i), '<'
end do
end subroutine
end program
wws@w6ws-4:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc-trunk/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:54:05AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85546
--- Comment #1 from be11f157cd19c4a2ba1e9c70a38b1a74 at protonmail dot com ---
The code sample is compiled with
gcc -ffreestanding -nostdlib -nostartfiles main.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85546
Bug ID: 85546
Summary: GCC assumes volatile asm block returns same value in
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69560
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 26 20:32:32 2018
New Revision: 259689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259689=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85545 - ICE with noexcept PMF conversion.
* cvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:47:34PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
>
> --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to G. Steinmetz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85544
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85543
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0)
> gfortran-8 changed between 20180304 and 20180311.
> gfortran-7 changed between 20180215 and 20180308.
> gfortran-6 changed between 20180307 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dave Pagan from comment #6)
> Helpful update, Jonathan - did you want to follow up on this bug then? Or
> should I go ahead based on your new information?
I missed this reply, sorry. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
Bug ID: 85545
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE with static_cast of
pointer-to-member-function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
Dave Pagan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Dave Pagan ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #9 from Tom Ritter ---
This may be related to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53485
https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/bugs/304/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85544
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Whereas this variant (plain b) works for all tested versions :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
integer, parameter :: na = -3, ne = 10
integer :: i, a(na:ne), b(na:ne), c(na:ne)
a = [(i,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85544
Bug ID: 85544
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at
fortran/trans-array.c:3385
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85543
Bug ID: 85543
Summary: ICE in update_current_proc_array_outer_dependency, at
fortran/resolve.c:3060
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
Bug ID: 85542
Summary: [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in check_inquiry, at
fortran/expr.c:2426
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85541
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
est
use char_kinds
implicit none
type (charptr(clen=:)), allocatable :: mychars
allocate (mychars) ! ICEes with this, compiles without it
end program
wws@w6ws-4:/rootsda5/home/wws/fortran/pdt$ /usr/local/gcc-trunk/bin/gfortran
--version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.0.0 20180426 (experimental)
Copyri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85538
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85531
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 26, 2018 6:09:40 PM GMT+02:00, "tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85531
>
>--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85540
Bug ID: 85540
Summary: gcc/ada/init.c:1282: suspicious expression ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85531
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
What is the best strategy on this?
I assume the Fortran front end could do a dependency analysis,
the existing code could be extended for this.
We could then either do the scalarization in the front end,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85539
Bug ID: 85539
Summary: x86_64: loads are not always narrowed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to krzysio.kurek from comment #24)
> Created attachment 44025 [details]
> Performance logs from perf
>
> Alright so I've generated 4 profiles with the following flags:
> "pure6": -O3 -DNDEBUG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
krzysio.kurek at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42199|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85536
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #3 from Tiziano Müller ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> The test works for me with 4.8.5. The change occurred between revisions
> r2370089 (2016-06-04, OK) and r237310 + one patch (2016-06-10, wrong code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:03:35AM +, mail at pietrodelugas dot it wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
>
> --- Comment #4 from Pietro Delugas ---
> a quick and dirty workaround is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #10 from Sumit ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
Thanks Segher for your comment.
I have gone through the changes and seems like they are relevant to "volatile
bitfield".
Just wanted to confirm (double check) if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85534
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 78151, which changed state.
Bug 78151 Summary: Fail to vectorize *min_element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78151
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78151
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84025
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
[ Please remove irrelevant parts of the email when replying to bugzilla mail ].
https://gcc.gnu.org/r205896 tells you this commit resolved four PRs:
PR middle-end/23623
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84025
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84020
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85538
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz ---
Sorry, I was trying to force GCC to use the k1 register and playing with
register asm (which didn't have any effect at all). f8 should actually be (cf.
https://godbolt.org/g/hSkoJV):
bool f8(__m512i x,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85422
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85519
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Committed to trunk.
Approved for 8.2. [ 8.1 release is targeted for Wednesday, May 2nd. ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85538
Bug ID: 85538
Summary: kortest for 32 and 64 bit masks incorrectly uses k0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84020
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Apr 26 13:27:04 2018
New Revision: 259678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259678=gcc=rev
Log:
[nvptx, libgomp] Add GOMP_NVPTX_JIT=-O[0-4] in nvptx libgomp plugin
2018-04-26 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84952
--- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Apr 26 13:26:48 2018
New Revision: 259677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259677=gcc=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Verify bar.sync position
2018-04-26 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84025
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Apr 26 13:26:38 2018
New Revision: 259676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259676=gcc=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Fix branch-around-nothing
2018-04-26 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85422
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Apr 26 13:26:25 2018
New Revision: 259675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259675=gcc=rev
Log:
[lto] Fixup loops before lto write-out
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85519
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Apr 26 13:26:09 2018
New Revision: 259674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259674=gcc=rev
Log:
[nvptx, libgomp, testsuite] Reduce recursion depth in declare_target-{1,2}.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61982
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44024=edit
vfprintf.i
Your patch proposal fixes the ICE with sysopen.i, but I still have a crash with
vfprintf.i (with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And finally a testcase that is miscompiled on 7.x, starting with r240858:
/* PR tree-optimization/85529 */
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fno-ssa-phiopt" } */
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly tweaked testcase:
struct S { int a; };
int b, c = 1, d, e, f;
static int g;
volatile struct S s;
signed char
foo (signed char i, int j)
{
return i < 0 ? i : i << j;
}
int
main ()
{
signed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85116
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So loop-header copying now DTRT but then PRE is faced with
[local count: 955630223]:
# __first_20 = PHI <_M_elems(2), __first_21(7)>
# __first_21 = PHI <[(void *) + 8B](2), __first_7(7)>
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85116
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 26 12:18:58 2018
New Revision: 259672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259672=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
>
> --- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
> Created attachment 44023
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44023
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44023=edit
Newlib's sysopen.i
I could reproduce the problem with aarch64-none-elf too, and this requires
-mabi=ilp32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.4
Summary|[8/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85275
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So after my fix for the related PR85116 we'll still not identify the loop as
do-while-loop because its latch isn't empty (it contains the IV increment).
As-is the loop probably should be header-copied but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
Bug ID: 85537
Summary: Invalid memory reference at runtime when calling
subroutine through procedure pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
>
> Christophe Lyon changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85536
Bug ID: 85536
Summary: ICE on procedure pointer assignment for subroutine
with procedure pointer argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Reassoc does
[local count: 530374774]:
- # b.9_28 = PHI
+ # b.9_28 = PHI
# RANGE [-83, 1] NONZERO 173
- # k_32 = PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85530
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
Bug ID: 85535
Summary: bogus code in decl2.c:decl_needed_p
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82658
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||randy.brecker64 at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85533
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85284
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85284
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 26 10:00:24 2018
New Revision: 259670
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259670=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 26 10:00:24 2018
New Revision: 259670
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259670=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85244
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 26 10:00:24 2018
New Revision: 259670
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259670=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85168
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 26 10:00:24 2018
New Revision: 259670
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259670=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85533
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85534
Bug ID: 85534
Summary: allocation of array with source give shifted index
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85533
Bug ID: 85533
Summary: Missing optimization for right-shift of unsigned int
(avr-g++)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85531
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85531
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you provide a testcase that can be compiled?
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here it is. The internal writes are there just to confuse the
optimizer.
module x
implicit none
contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #4 from Pietro Delugas ---
a quick and dirty workaround is to move all the routines in the "leng"
interface at the bottom of the file. But some compilers do not accept this code
as valid.
A better solution is to move the leng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 26 07:21:42 2018
New Revision: 259667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259667=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-26 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/85450
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85531
Bug ID: 85531
Summary: Implement some loop fusion in the Fortran front end
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #8 from Sumit ---
Hi Segher,
I somehow missed the below update from your side.
Can you help me understand if this was some known issue in GCC which got fixed
in r205896? If yes, can you let us know if got fixed in 4.8.1 version?
100 matches
Mail list logo