https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89919
Bug ID: 89919
Summary: internal compiler error when building MKL-DNN
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89912
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 2 07:55:30 2019
New Revision: 270076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix param description of graphite-max-arrays-per-scop (PR translation/8991
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #18 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Do you think it would be possible to get this fix before the 9.1 release (see
the announcement by Richard B. yesterday/today)?
Hi ,
We can develop quality website for you at a reasonable Price.
Employed developer who will work only on your requirements.
We never ask for advance payments.
350 USD CMS Websites
250 USD responsive design only
600 USD Ecommerce Sites(only one payment gateway)
Our expertise include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89919
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Roman: Do you have a GCC compiler that accepts the code and does not cause an
ICE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89920
Bug ID: 89920
Summary: do loop fails to complete
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #18)
> Do you think it would be possible to get this fix before the 9.1 release
> (see the announcement by Richard B. yesterday/today)?
If someone can propose and test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection,|
|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89920
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89920
--- Comment #2 from MarkEggleston ---
Affects 7, 8 and trunk branches.
A do loop from 1 to the maximum value of an integer does not exit. The example
below has a check that forces the loop to exit.
program test
implicit none
integer(4) :: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
There are a couple of places in semantics.c where we call
maybe_instantiate_noexcept and then, without checking that it returns true, we
proceed to use TYPE_NOTHROW_P, which expands to nothrow_spec_p. I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89920
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> But then I remembered that "internal compiler errors" have also made their
> way into gcc.pot. I don't see any benefit in translating internal errors,
> therefor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53940
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80055
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Frederic Marchal from comment #5)
> My opinion was that it would be rude to display an untranslated message to
> the user. But, to spare users some head scratching when faced with a message
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80055
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> I believe that everywhere we're using internal_error, the diagnostics
> machinery will add "internal compiler error: " as a prefix when the message
> is emitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Did the patch ever get sent to the gcc-patches list?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89921
Bug ID: 89921
Summary: The dom pass does not respect size of an 'asm' when
duplicating BBs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83797
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-11 00:00:00 |2019-4-2
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83797
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another related problem is that this should highlight the return type, not the
closing paren:
vm.cc:1:11: error: ‘::main’ must return ‘int’
void main() { }
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83797
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Another related problem is that this should highlight the return type, not
> the closing paren:
>
> vm.cc:1:11: error: ‘::main’ must return ‘int’
> void mai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #35 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the patch and sorry for the delay! I don't think it was the
intention to discourage people. I have also pinged the AArch64 maintainers to
review it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 89912, which changed state.
Bug 89912 Summary: typo in params.def: scop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89912
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89922
Bug ID: 89922
Summary: Loop on fixed size array is not unrolled and poorly
optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 11:04:22 2019
New Revision: 270087
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270087&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite: do not try to add -m32 (PR 89916)
PR testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
Bug 86928 depends on bug 89916, which changed state.
Bug 89916 Summary: New test case gcc.dg/pr86928.c fails on 64 bit targets
(r270061)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89923
Bug ID: 89923
Summary: printf format check and char8_t
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890
Andrew Wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Created attachment 46069
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46069&action=edit
> Use dg-runtest instead of dg-test
>
> (In repl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89375
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P5
--- Comment #2 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Ignoring the test results, multilib handling seems to be working well for you
> then?
It does indeed, thanks. Not having tested Solaris/SPARC y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89923
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Especially as the C++2a change breaks previously valid code:
printf("%s\n", u8"");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68567
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record, the tests in comment 1 compile without ICE since GCC6.
Unless someone beats me, I am planning to package the patch in comment 4 and
submit it to the mailing lists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
>> Ignoring the test results, multilib handling seems to be worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #9 from 康 珊 ---
That's great! Thank you very much for your support :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] G++ gives |[8 Regression] G++ gives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #9 from Richard Purdie
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Purdie from comment #6)
> > Its part of a Yocto Project build and we would only ever build it once so we
> > don't need/want the overhead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
Valentine changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||v at vsamko dot com
--- Comment #3 from Vale
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Valentine from comment #3)
> I'm experiencing a very similar problem. Is that a problem with gcc 8 and
> later?
Yes, as stated in the summary and comment 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is what I meant in code. Passes testing.
Index: semantics.c
===
--- semantics.c (revision 270062)
+++ semantics.c (working copy)
@@ -9548,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89924
Bug ID: 89924
Summary: [missed-optimization] Function not de-virtualized
within the same TU
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81171
Paul le roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
Bug ID: 89925
Summary: [8,9 Regression] Wrong array bounds from ALLOCATE with
MOLD
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
--- Comment #5 from Paul le roux ---
On the GCC trunk version on godbolt.org there is still a difference between the
two cases, but it seems to have turned around. The noprofile case has
vector::resize partially inlined and in the profile case, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83797
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> FWIW the C front-end highlights the function name not the return type:
>
> vm.c:1:6: warning: return type of ‘main’ is not ‘int’ [-Wmain]
> void main() { }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89926
Bug ID: 89926
Summary: -Wmain warning about return type doesn't show location
of the return type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89927
Bug ID: 89927
Summary: Inconsistent behavior in std::regex when optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
Bug ID: 89928
Summary: [8 Regression] errors out in c++17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
$ cat main.ii
template class> struct a;
template class T1> struct b { a c; };
template class F> struct d;
template class F> struct d;
$ g++ -std=c++17 main.ii
main.ii:3:66: error: template parameter 'te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #34 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #33)
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
> >
> > --- Comment #32 from Segher Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89919
--- Comment #4 from Roman Dubtsov ---
@Martin: I'm not sure how useful this info after bisection has been done, but
FWIW 8.1.0 ICEs and and 7.4.0 does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89928
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
dup of PR 89906?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80055
--- Comment #8 from Frederic Marchal ---
Two years later, I appear to be the only active translator. I translated all
the messages. So, cutting down the number of messages is not an issue I feel
overly concerned with :-)
Removing the internal er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:39:22 2019
New Revision: 270095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: fixup reset of first_insn (PR 85876)
2019-04-02 Andrey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:45:57 2019
New Revision: 270096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: skip outer loop in get_all_loop_exits (PR 84206)
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
Bug 77278 depends on bug 68717, which changed state.
Bug 68717 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] New (bogus?) warnings when compiling some
gfortran.dg tests with -flto after r231239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80174
Bug 80174 depends on bug 68717, which changed state.
Bug 68717 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] New (bogus?) warnings when compiling some
gfortran.dg tests with -flto after r231239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
Bug 77278 depends on bug 68649, which changed state.
Bug 68649 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] note: code may be misoptimized unless
-fno-strict-aliasing is used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47660
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89646
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The warning is unconditional, but it should be easy to replace the 9
> with some suitable option.
I meant "replace the 0".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #20)
> Sometimes life can be easy.
>
> We need to make -fzero-initialized-in-bss the default for
> gfortran.
Actually, no. I checked with a wrong version of the com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Bug ID: 89929
Summary: __attribute__((target("avx512bw"))) doesn't work on
non avx512bw systems
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89930
Bug ID: 89930
Summary: - -Wl,--wrap= incompatible with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 17:05:59 2019
New Revision: 270102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 17:05:59 2019
New Revision: 270102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot
org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89927
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89931
Bug ID: 89931
Summary: Incorrect compiler error with temporary object used as
function arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80055
--- Comment #9 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Frederic Marchal from comment #8)
> Two years later, I appear to be the only active translator. I translated all
> the messages. So, cutting down the number of messages is not an issue I feel
> ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88643
--- Comment #7 from Дилян Палаузов ---
As noted at https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406 this does
work with clang+gold and clang+lld, but not with clang+bfd.
As this does not work with gcc+gold, the problem is not in the linker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #13 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that r270046 introduced the same thing into gcc 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Note that r270046 introduced the same thing into gcc 8.
Yes, and r270047 into gcc 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89932
Bug ID: 89932
Summary: ICE in must_pass_in_stack_var_size_or_pad, at
calls.c:5824
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:37:14 2019
New Revision: 270104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:37:14 2019
New Revision: 270104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89902
PR target/89903
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933
Bug ID: 89933
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in merge_decls, at
c/c-decl.c:2517
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89934
Bug ID: 89934
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tree_fits_uhwi_p, at tree.c:7237
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the patch in comment 11 is quite close to the Harald's original patch
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
but Thomas persuaded me to be less strict.
So shall I resubmit my or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So shall I resubmit my original patch, or is Steve's comment#11 better?
I'ld take Steve's conditions, but your wording for the errors!-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #18 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de ---
Am 02.04.19 um 20:48 schrieb anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org:
> I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89934
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
