[Bug fortran/54679] Erroneous "Expected P edit descriptor" in conjunction with L descriptor

2016-10-27 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679 --- Comment #5 from Nick Maclaren --- That's the right message. Warning or error, it doesn't matter.

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

2014-01-14 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #29 from Nick Maclaren --- On Jan 14 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 > >> >The FENV_ACCESS pragma provides a means to inform the implementation whe >n a >> >program might

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

2014-01-14 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #27 from Nick Maclaren --- On Jan 14 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 > >> What "explicit definition of behavior" is there for the case when >> STDC FENV_ACCESS is set to "

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

2014-01-14 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #25 from Nick Maclaren --- On Jan 10 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 > >--- Comment #24 from Vincent Lefèvre - > >(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #23) > >> If __S

[Bug libfortran/59108] New: ACTION='READ' is using O_CREAT

2013-11-13 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
libfortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk Running 'strace -v -e trace=open' on the following program: PROGRAM Main OPEN(11,FILE='wombat',ACTION='READ') OPEN(12,FILE='numbat',ACTION='READ&#x

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

2013-11-11 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #23 from Nick Maclaren --- (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #21) > > > Richard Biener's approach to the default is the one that matches the C > > standard and Vincent Lefèvre is mistaken. > > No, I'm correct. > > > Defining

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

2013-11-11 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 Nick Maclaren changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk --- Comment #20

[Bug c++/58527] Failures when a function parameter pack is not final

2013-09-25 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58527 --- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren --- Thanks. I can't use your fix, because I am trying to write a generic multi-dimensional array class for possible inclusion in the standard, and demanding such usages from end users is Not On. There are other

[Bug c++/58527] New: Failures when a function parameter pack is not final

2013-09-25 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk This may be already reported, but I can't see how to search for it. Sorry. #include using namespace std; template void weeble(Pack ... rest, double x) { int y[] = {rest...}; for (

[Bug fortran/58200] New: Option fcheck is misleadingly located in option descriptions

2013-08-20 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk I am not sure whether this should be against fortran or web. Using: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/ With most portable compilers, code generation options

[Bug c++/58093] Semi-bogus warning about narrowing conversions and variadic templates

2013-08-06 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093 --- Comment #5 from Nick Maclaren --- I did. Please read what the C++ standard says about conversions. 4.7 [conv.integral] paragraph 2 is a paraphrase of wording that has been in every C and C++ compiler since C90, and states that all integers (

[Bug c++/58093] Semi-bogus warning about narrowing conversions and variadic templates

2013-08-06 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093 --- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren --- I have no idea why you think that it is a narrowing conversion. The references I gave have been essentially unchanged since C90, and there is required to be no loss of information. All values of int can be r

[Bug c++/58093] New: Semi-bogus warning about narrowing conversions and variadic templates

2013-08-06 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk This may be related to 45397 and 53661, but it's not clear. The diagnostic is both confusing and makes many uses of variadic templates extremely confusi

[Bug c++/58037] sizeof... accepted only in some contexts

2013-07-31 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58037 --- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren --- Thanks. That's simpler than my workaround.

[Bug c++/58037] New: sizeof... accepted only in some contexts

2013-07-31 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk With 4.8.1: template class weeble { static constexpr int Ranks[sizeof...(Dims)] = {Dims...}; const int rank = sizeof...(Dims); }; weeble<3,5> x; produces: junk.cpp:4:22: error: expected 

[Bug libstdc++/57403] A vector of volatile int doesn't work, but one of volatile void * does

2013-06-18 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403 --- Comment #5 from Nick Maclaren --- Because of the last comment, I am not going to close this as resolved, invalid, but please do so if appropriate.

[Bug c++/57617] OpenMP critical does not seem to synchronise correctly

2013-06-18 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57617 Nick Maclaren changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57618] New: OpenMP atomic read and write are not sequentially consistent

2013-06-14 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk See bug 57617 for the data and more description. But the same program finds that OpenMP atomic read and write are not sequentially consistent. That will assuredly cause

[Bug c++/57617] New: OpenMP critical does not seem to synchronise correctly

2013-06-14 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk Created attachment 30305 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30305&action=edit Gzipped tar file of sources, command to run the test and output There are some ancient proble

[Bug libstdc++/51749] Including pollutes global namespace

2013-06-11 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749 --- Comment #25 from Nick Maclaren --- Strictly, don't you mean feature selection macros? It isn't worth being too perfectionist on this, as the standards (both de jure and de facto) are an ungodly mess, and it is getting steadily harder to write

[Bug libstdc++/51749] Including pollutes global namespace

2013-06-11 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749 --- Comment #17 from Nick Maclaren --- I will just add to comment 8 that dumping large chunks of the POSIX namespace in isn't legal, unless WG21 have completely lost their marbles :-) But, as people have said, this isn't fixable by hacking - not

[Bug libstdc++/57582] New: clone is effectively reserved by and should not be

2013-06-11 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk This is probably java leaking into C++, or something of that nature. The word "clone" does not occur in the C++ standard. Under OpenSUSE 11.1, gcc 4.8.0 fa

[Bug libstdc++/57403] A vector of volatile int doesn't work, but one of volatile void * does

2013-05-24 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403 --- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren --- On May 24 2013, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403 > > --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Well > volatile void * is a pointer to volatile void and the po

[Bug libstdc++/57403] New: A vector of volatile int doesn't work, but one of volatile void * does

2013-05-24 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
erity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk In gcc 4.8.0, the following program fails horribly: #include int main () { std::vector memory(123); } Change the 'int' to void

[Bug c/57368] Trying to build CilkPlus fails with an ICE

2013-05-22 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57368 --- Comment #1 from Nick Maclaren --- Disabling --enable-checking=all causes it to build.

[Bug c/57368] New: Trying to build CilkPlus fails with an ICE

2013-05-22 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk This is different from 56485. I have tried to report it to the CilkPlus team, but the mechanism appears to be broken. I haven't tried stripping the problem down, as that is a lot of effort and it is

[Bug c++/56697] Erroneous rejection of use of private constructor in public method

2013-03-23 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697 --- Comment #4 from Nick Maclaren 2013-03-23 13:46:33 UTC --- On Mar 23 2013, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > > Which Intel out of curiosity? The 13.1.0 I have here at hand rejects it > exactly 12.1. It's not my system, so I

[Bug c++/56697] Erroneous rejection of use of private constructor in public method

2013-03-23 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697 --- Comment #1 from Nick Maclaren 2013-03-23 12:49:31 UTC --- Sorry, I should be clearer. I reported this because of the compiler difference, and because I can read the relevant wording of the standard either way. But I should have said

[Bug c++/56697] New: Erroneous rejection of use of private constructor in public method

2013-03-23 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697 Bug #: 56697 Summary: Erroneous rejection of use of private constructor in public method Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UN

[Bug middle-end/48814] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect scalar increment result

2013-03-15 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814 Nick Maclaren changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk

[Bug fortran/54679] Erroneous "Expected P edit descriptor" in conjunction with L descriptor

2012-09-23 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679 --- Comment #1 from Nick Maclaren 2012-09-23 12:19:00 UTC --- Please reduce the severity to trivial, and change it to "Confusing diagnostic"! It's my error, at root, but gfortran could do better. I had forgotten the relevant constraint

[Bug fortran/54679] New: Erroneous "Expected P edit descriptor" in conjunction with L descriptor

2012-09-23 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679 Bug #: 54679 Summary: Erroneous "Expected P edit descriptor" in conjunction with L descriptor Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Statu

[Bug libfortran/53962] New: Tab handling with formatted stream output

2012-07-14 Thread nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53962 Bug #: 53962 Summary: Tab handling with formatted stream output Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: