http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57609
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57609
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57603
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57603
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57710
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
The following code (minus the IF condition) shows that _vptr is not set for
the allocatable component:
y.x._data = 0B;
there should be - but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57604
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57710
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] _vptr not set for |[OOP] [F08] _vptr not set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46399
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46399
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46399
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57559
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57960
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58035
Bug ID: 58035
Summary: LRA: S/390: Ada bootstrap fail
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58036
Bug ID: 58036
Summary: [meta-bug] alias.c:base_alias_check says stack
accesses with different base registers don't alias
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58037
Bug ID: 58037
Summary: sizeof... accepted only in some contexts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58037
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58037
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The compiler only rejects it when the member is non-static and uses = for the
initializer.
As a workaround you can use a braced-init-list as the initializer for the
member:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PR 57036 is very much related to this one ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
PR 57036 is very much related to this one ...
Sorry, that should have been: PR 57306
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
Bug ID: 58038
Summary: std::this_thread::sleep_until can cause inifinite
sleep
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58037
--- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk ---
Thanks. That's simpler than my workaround.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this should be fixed in chrono not thread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57673
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nmm1 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30577
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30577action=edit
Simple x86_64 testcase
Simple x86_64 testcase triggering the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58037
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Jon, I have two spare minutes and if you don't mind I'm taking care of the
stupid change myself.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sure, I was going to do it this evening but please go ahead, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Done for 4.8.2 and 4.9.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
if (_setjmp (jmpbuf))
I wonder if this is due to _setjmp not being marked as return twice.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder if this is due to _setjmp not being marked as return twice.
Is that a missing decoration in the GLIBC declaration?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
if (_setjmp (jmpbuf))
I wonder if this is due to _setjmp not being marked as return twice.
Looking at special_function_p, it should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57591
--- Comment #5 from acrux acrux at linuxmail dot org ---
same failure with gcc-4.8-20130725
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57532
Salamanderrake salamanderrake at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is that the type of the record that contains the scalar
data we are accessing has non-BLK mode despite that we are not
accessing a part of it. This is because it has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7)
In any event, it is clear that
the code in expand_assignment cannot cope with unaligned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57532
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Just search gcc-patches around the date of Comment #3, no?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00372.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also PR 29349.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
richard.koolhans at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.koolhans at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57710
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
Can't we do a 'static' initialization (of _vptr *and* _data) in both cases?
As in
struct t2 y = {.x={._vptr=__vtab_m_T,._data = 0B}}
For this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58001
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
The following patch causes gfortran to treat a tab within
a FORMAT statement that same as it does elsewhere for the
appearance of a nonconforming use of tab. The two tet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
An updated patch was posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-07/msg00135.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a reduced version of the test case from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-07/msg00103.html, which for some reason
still ICEs:
type :: c
end type c
type(c), target :: x
class(c),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
Here is a reduced version of the test case from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-07/msg00103.html, which for some reason
still ICEs:
type :: c
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
Giving 'x' the SAVE attribute makes both versions compile without error. I
guess the original version is still valid, since 'x' should implicitly get
the SAVE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 55207, which changed state.
Bug 55207 Summary: Automatic deallocation of variables declared in the main
program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #65 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #64)
would be simplified to this:
mov.l @(4,r4),r1
tst r1,r1 // T = @(4,r4) == 0
.L3:
bt/s.L5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
--- Comment #29 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Iain?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #11)
Well, I believe this
unaligned arrays are generally broken.
consider this example:
With or
without the patch? If without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
Bug ID: 58039
Summary: -ftree-vectorizer make a loop crash on non-aligned
memory
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Barkov bar at mariadb dot org ---
The bug is known to repeat on the following operating systems:
- Fedora 17
- Ubuntu 13.04
- OpenSUSE 11.1
57 matches
Mail list logo
