代開各行业【普通、增值税】
电、微:139-2552-3045唐经理;gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 May 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 26 May 2019, hoganmeier at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
>
> --- Comment #22 from krux ---
> I can also reproduce it without any linker scrip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 27 May 2019, ffengqi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
>
> --- Comment #18 from Qi Feng ---
> I only learned gcc for about 2 months, and I h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90615
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 27 07:39:14 2019
New Revision: 271645
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271645&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-27 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/90615
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90616
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Note GCC 5 is no longer maintained. Eventually the target could make use of
nonzero_bits knowledge here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90619
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90619, which changed state.
Bug 90619 Summary: [10 regression] spec 2017 tests 527.cam4_r and 521.wrf_r
segfault while running after r271386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90619
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90640
Bug ID: 90640
Summary: -Wpointer-arith appears to be enabled by default, but
is not reported by --help
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90637
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
Bug ID: 90641
Summary: libgomp.c-c++-common/lastprivate-conditional-1.c etc
FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90640
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90638
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
GCC 7, 8 and 9 for me output
(1,1.46292e-09)
2147483647 2147483648
(-1,7.77156e-16) (-1,-1.46292e-09)
(1.55377,0.643594)
(1.55377,0.643594) (1.55377,0.643594) (1.55377,0.643594)
(1.55377,0.643594)
(1.553
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #2 from bogi788 at hotmail dot com ---
Created attachment 46414
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46414&action=edit
gcc 8.3.0 preprocessed source
The .i file was generated using gcc 8.3.0, since (as mentioned in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #3 from bogi788 at hotmail dot com ---
Created attachment 46415
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46415&action=edit
gcc 9.1.0 preprocessed source
the same file preprocessed with gcc 9.1.0, though i doubt it'll be mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #29 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #28)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-05/msg00173.html reports
> the same symptoms for netcdf-fortran-4.4.5, presumably due
> to the same issue.
>
> I'll try to f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to bogi788 from comment #2)
> Created attachment 46414 [details]
> gcc 8.3.0 preprocessed source
>
> The .i file was generated using gcc 8.3.0, since (as mentioned in the
> bugreport) gcc 9.1.0 writ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90610
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
It's actually cunroll that exposes the issue in zbufclip. Ah, oops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90628
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
I wonder if in C it should be controlled by -Wdiscarded-qualifiers. I am happy
with the unconditional error, just asking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90628
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-Wdiscarded-qualifiers is for when the prototype requires pointer to non-const
and pointer to const is passed, which is the case for the clang style builtins,
but not for __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow, whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #5 from bogi788 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to bogi788 from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 46414 [details]
> > gcc 8.3.0 preprocessed source
> >
> > The .i file was generated using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does malloc guarantee sufficient alignment for long long?
What is offsetof (struct gomp_work_share, inline_ordered_team_ids) on the
target?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90642
Bug ID: 90642
Summary: g++ fails to resolve template function overload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90610
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Testing
Index: gcc/match.pd
===
--- gcc/match.pd(revision 271644)
+++ gcc/match.pd(working copy)
@@ -5453,8 +5453,8 @@ (define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90637
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Cleaned up testcase.
/* PR tree-optimization/90637 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-fopenmp -O1 --param sink-frequency-threshold=90" } */
int v;
void
foo (int c)
{
int i;
#pragma omp for simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #7 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> So don't store them as filesystem::path objects then, store them as strings
> and create a path as needed.
Type system is here for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90638
--- Comment #4 from Igor Smirnov ---
Richard, thanks for checks.
Yes this is correct result.
I am wondering, do they correct this problem for complex<> and for inbuilt
types only?
Is there a possibility for you to run the following program on t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Sorry, I can't reproduce that. Maybe you could test a vanilla GCC built from
source files?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Or you can provide a docker image that will show that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90637
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi,
what I mean is if you use "up" several times and list the
source of the calling routines, do you encounter something like
call foo([1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0])
or
call foo((/1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0/))
?
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #31 from Martin Liška ---
I see this:
(gdb) frame
#2 0x00453b06 in pionfput_mod::put_var_vdesc_1d_double (file=...,
vardesc=..., ival=...) at pionfput_mod.fppized.f90:2468
2468ierr = put_var_1d_double (File, vardesc%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90638
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Igor, there are free websites that let you check it for yourself very easily,
for instance https://wandbox.org/ , you can test many versions of the compiler
online there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90610, which changed state.
Bug 90610 Summary: [10 Regression] 526.blender_r miscompared on znver1 with
-Ofast -march=native since r271463
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90610
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90610
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 27 10:52:14 2019
New Revision: 271652
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271652&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-27 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90610
* ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Does malloc guarantee sufficient alignment for long long?
It does: 8 bytes for 32-bit, 16 bytes for 64-bit with the libc malloc.
> What is off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #8 from bogi788 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Sorry, I can't reproduce that. Maybe you could test a vanilla GCC built from
> source files?
This was on gcc 9.1 compiled from source on rhel7. I can'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90643
Bug ID: 90643
Summary: Code works with differences on ICC and GNU++
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90643
Monster changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90638
--- Comment #6 from Igor Smirnov ---
Mark, thank you for useful advice.
So, my conclusion is that the rules for resolution in the presence of
function templates are not changed in gcc. For all versions of C++
the result generated by this site
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90644
Bug ID: 90644
Summary: Call to __builtin_memcmp not folded for identical
vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Martin,
this
3822 ierr = pio_put_var (tape(t)%File, ps0var, (/ps0/))
looks like the culprit (or rather, where gfortran currently
generates wrong code). This is consistent with the problem seen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90594
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46417
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46417&action=edit
prerequesite
This is the prerequesite for getting rid of the seprate pass doing final value
replacement. It m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #33 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #32)
> Hi Martin,
>
> this
>
> 3822 ierr = pio_put_var (tape(t)%File, ps0var, (/ps0/))
>
> looks like the culprit (or rather, where gfortran currently
> genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90644
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90644
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90638
--- Comment #7 from Igor Smirnov ---
There can be still problems with big integer powers of complex numbers in the
latest versions.
I just don't see a single correct answer.
As above the expected correct responses are marked by "should be" and th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #10 from bogi788 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to bogi788 from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > Sorry, I can't reproduce that. Maybe you could test a vanilla GCC built from
> > source files?
>
> This was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90637
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 27 13:18:12 2019
New Revision: 271661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90637
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90637
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46418
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46418&action=edit
gcc10-pr90641.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90638
--- Comment #8 from Igor Smirnov ---
Let me add corrections to my previous post.
1. It needs to add (long double) before M_PI / LONG_MAX in the line
long double phid = M_PI / LONG_MAX;
in the above example. But the result is not changed signific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #26 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Mon May 27 13:37:57 2019
New Revision: 271662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite,aarch64,arm] PR88440: Fix testcases
2019-05-27 Christophe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 46418
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46418&action=edit
> gcc10-pr90641.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Worke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90614
--- Comment #7 from martin ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #6)
> Fixed on trunk and GCC 9 branch.
Many thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
Bug ID: 90645
Summary: sparc-unknown-linux-gnu/libgo/.libs/libgo.so:
undefined reference to `fdopendir'
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>fdopendir() is available in glibc since version 2.4.
What glibc version are you using?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
Created attachment 46419
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46419&action=edit
usr\include\bits
ldd --version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90627
--- Comment #11 from bogi788 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Sorry, I can't reproduce that. Maybe you could test a vanilla GCC built from
> source files?
I tried again in a new rhel7 vm, going straight from dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
Bug ID: 90646
Summary: std::filesystem::absolute( "yourpathhere" ) segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
--- Comment #1 from myLC at gmx dot net ---
Forgot to mention that it's C++20 (-std=c++2a).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
--- Comment #3 from myLC at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you provide a compilable example?
Good point. The example works, hence the problem seems to be somewhere else:
#include
#include
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
myLC at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
Bug ID: 90647
Summary: Warn on returning a lambda with captured local
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bastian.beischer@rwth-aache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90648
Bug ID: 90648
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE tree check: accessed operand 4
of call_expr with 3 operands in
generic_simplify_MULT_EXPR, at generic-match.c:27222
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90649
Bug ID: 90649
Summary: ICE tree check: accessed operand 4 of call_expr with 3
operands in generic_simplify_EQ_EXPR, at
generic-match.c:42857
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90650
Bug ID: 90650
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2552
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90650
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90651
Bug ID: 90651
Summary: ICE in FuncDeclaration::semantic3, at
d/dmd/func.c:1524
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90652
Bug ID: 90652
Summary: Recursive concept leads to segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90639
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon May 27 19:12:19 2019
New Revision: 271668
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271668&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix sanitizer build (PR90639)
The assembler code needs to s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Did libgo ever work on this system? I can't remember. I don't see how we can
work around a missing __tls_get_addr symbol. That suggests that the system
does not support Thread Local Storage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
--- Comment #7 from Giulio Benetti ---
This Bug still exists on Gcc 9.1.
I have tested it with 4.9/5/6/7/8/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
--- Comment #8 from Giulio Benetti ---
This is the build failure log:
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/d86/d86251974a0a348a64d9a1d1fd7d02dd4aff0792/build-end.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 27 21:27:00 2019
New Revision: 271671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/90641
* work.c (gomp_init_work_share): Instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34940
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #34 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46420
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46420&action=edit
Patch which includes a check for being contiguous
This patch looks like it could do the job. I'll have to wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #34)
> Created attachment 46420 [details]
> Patch which includes a check for being contiguous
>
> This patch looks like it could do the job. I'll have to work a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #36 from Thomas Koenig ---
... which should be
Index: testsuite/gfortran.dg/internal_pack_21.f90
===
--- testsuite/gfortran.dg/internal_pack_21.f90 (Revision 271629)
++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Is it possible you're mixing code compiled with GCC 8 and GCC 9? In general
that works, but not for the new C++17 components that were still experimental
in GCC 8, such as filesystem::path.
Valgrind might
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo