https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
Bug ID: 87873
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
incompatible types in PHI argument 0)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87838
--- Comment #2 from menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com ---
Thank you Dominique for testing this on a Mac. So perhaps the problem is
specific to Linux.
Additional information that might help with debugging the segmentation fault:
1) Compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78837
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78357
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Final patch submitted for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-11/msg00017.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Created attachment 44952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44952&action=edit
consensual gnatchop part of the previous patch
The gnatchop bits are now separated, and have nothing speci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87778
Nicolas Boulenguez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44914|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87079
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87079
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Sat Nov 3 18:12:44 2018
New Revision: 265770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-03 Sandra Loosemore
PR target/87079
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #2 from Gary Mills ---
I just built and installed gdb. I've never used it, though. I'll need
complete
instructions on how to determine if it's an alignment error.
That is a very good suggestion, something I never even considered.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Nov 3 14:49:33 2018
New Revision: 265769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-03 Tobias Burnus
Thomas Koenig
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Should LRA do this? Shouldn't it be done earlier? Or later, in a peephole
> for example?
I think that combine should do this propagation, if the simplifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Should LRA do this? Shouldn't it be done earlier? Or later, in a peephole
for example?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87827
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Nov 3 12:16:34 2018
New Revision: 265768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-03 Tobias Burnus
Thomas Koenig
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87796
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> Ah. So you want this optimisation (which is currently done by LRA) to be
> done
> by combine as well; it's not that the resulting assembler code for this
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87778
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87764
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87838
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87715
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
--- Comment #9 from marco atzeri ---
It seems the patch works, just not as I was expecting.
The code allows to export the variables in the common block
--
$ cat mydll-3.f90
! mydll.f90 --
! Simple library (to be comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
--- Comment #1 from John Bytheway ---
On further reflection, it would make more sense to put this check inside
_M_transfer_from_if, rather than in every splice function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
--- Comment #8 from marco atzeri ---
Created attachment 44950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44950&action=edit
test case for patch
31 matches
Mail list logo
