https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80583
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 2 07:54:47 2017
New Revision: 255353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255353=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/78643
PR target/80583
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78643
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 2 07:54:47 2017
New Revision: 255353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255353=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/78643
PR target/80583
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
It is combine that simplifies a compare of _9 (aka t1) with 1: it knows _9 is
either -1 or 0 from the &1 followed by -1, so it can't be equal to 1. From
that simplification, others follow, and the loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83254
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81212
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 2 07:57:04 2017
New Revision: 255354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255354=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81212
* tree-cfg.c (pass_warn_function_return::execute):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Daniel Starke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.3.0 |
--- Comment #16 from Daniel Starke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83255
Bug ID: 83255
Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O1
-floop-nest-optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83243
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83221
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:14:21 2017
New Revision: 255297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255297=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83221
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> we miss to optimize (int)((short int)((unsigned short) x1.1_4 ^ 8) & 1) to
> (int)(x1.1_4 & 1) as well.
(untested)
+/* (X |^ 8) & 1 --> X & 1 */
+(for op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78643
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83232
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83233
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80583
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83237
Bug ID: 83237
Summary: Values returned by std::poisson_distribution are not
distributed correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:08:55 2017
New Revision: 255295
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255295=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/83219
* tree-cfg.c: Include asan.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83221
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:11:56 2017
New Revision: 255296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255296=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81275
* tree-cfg.c (group_case_labels_stmt): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] null |Implement Windows native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83238
Bug ID: 83238
Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in
graphite_can_represent_scev, at
graphite-scop-detection.c:971
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83024
--- Comment #2 from Guille ---
I should point out that the '-fconcepts' option isn't necessary, but
'-std=c++1z' is (e.g. with '-std=c++11' it won't ICE but it also won't
compile).
So a minimal compilation command is:
$ c++ t.c -std=c++1z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83233
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:18:52 2017
New Revision: 255299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255299=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83233
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (nop_stats,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83232
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase:
SUBROUTINE MATERIAL_41_INTEGRATION ( STRESS,YLDC,EFPS,
&
& DTnext,Dxx,Dyy,Dzz,Dxy,Dxz,Dyz,MatID,P1,P3 )
REAL(KIND(0D0)), INTENT(INOUT) :: STRESS(6)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #8 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I noticed that I never resubmitted my workaround for the kernel for this
problem, and nothing happened on the gcc side either. To make sure I capture
the situation correctly in the kernel patch changelog,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:17:06 2017
New Revision: 255298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255298=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/79153
* tree.h (SWITCH_BREAK_LABEL_P): Define.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|[8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80135
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, Jason and I agreed that arrays of structs with flexible array members
should be rejected (thus ice-on-invalid-code). It was not my intend to accept
this code. I just haven't gotten around to fixing it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82186
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
For C, what is supposed to happen is that every call to groktypename where
there might be side effects from the type name passes a non-null EXPR
argument, and then the caller arranges for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83249
Bug ID: 83249
Summary: C++11 Parameter pack deduced incorrectly in decltype
return declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81158
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
That would make sense. I think this can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79228
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 1 20:19:07 2017
New Revision: 255335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255335=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/79228 - extensions hide C++14 complex literal operators
libcpp/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83248
Bug ID: 83248
Summary: Spuriously identifying template arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 5.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80135
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you please find time for that during GCC 8 stage3/stage4?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80135
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I'll see what I can do. You had some concerns with rejecting this code in bug
78635 comment 9. Presumably you have resolved those to your own satisfaction?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246
--- Comment #2 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
Created attachment 42771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42771=edit
shorter case for just getting loader error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246
--- Comment #3 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
Created attachment 42772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42772=edit
shorter case for internal compiler error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80135
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The glibc people should know (or you can try building glibc).
That said, I think rejecting structs with flexible array members is
unnecessary, e.g. the C FE doesn't reject them either, what we should reject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83240
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80061
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benni.buch at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83242
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83230
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The Makefile doesn't have any -O* options, is this all without optimizations?
I admit I've been only compiling the fortran source with trunk f951, the rest
with the system gcc (6.3.1), but for f951 I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83238
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Dec 1 17:50:59 2017
New Revision: 255330
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255330=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/82522 overload map insert functions for rvalues (LWG 2354)
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81046
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82979, which changed state.
Bug 82979 Summary: [PDT] [F2003] [ice-on-invalid] ICE (segfault) on invalid
type-param-name-list in PDT declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82979
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79228
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50871
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> > > /home/jwakely/build/powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/
> > > complex:1951: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 1 20:35:52 2017
New Revision: 255337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255337=gcc=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve comparison rtx_cost (PR81288)
The current rs6000 rtx_cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 1 20:37:33 2017
New Revision: 255338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255338=gcc=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve comparison rtx_cost (PR81288)
The current rs6000 rtx_cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|segher at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Any progress with this?
I can make a patch for the dependency problem. I'm not sure what happened to
the hot/cold block partitioning verification code --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81676
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Buch ---
Does still exist in:
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20171201 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress with this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83241
Bug ID: 83241
Summary: [8 regression] segmentation fault in dce
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83232
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 1 13:33:40 2017
New Revision: 255307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255307=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-01 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
It is strongly related to the other PRs. IMO, all warnings like
maybe-uninitialized should move from Wall to Wextra, but that's going to be a
hard sell.
In the mean time, we fail to find some VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82878
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, not fixed on the 7 branch, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is a bad understanding of what undefined behavior means. After you invoke
undefined behavior anywhere in your program, anything can happen, there are no
constraints on what can happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://bugs.llvm.org/show_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
Bug ID: 83239
Summary: False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple
std::vector code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> Yea. The code that was recording NAME = NAME conditional equivalences was
> largely disabled back in August. They'll only be recorded now if one name
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80135
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82695
--- Comment #2 from Ev Drikos ---
The patch in PR/69960 indeed solves the problem described in PR/69960.
I'll wait until next gcc release to see if it also solves the problem described
in this PR.
Thanks,
Ev. Drikos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80293
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tvrtko.ursulin at linux dot
intel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, arnd at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
>
> --- Comment #8 from Arnd Bergmann ---
> I noticed that I never resubmitted my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
--- Comment #3 from Paul Romano ---
Thank you both for your quick responses. I understand that the bit model for
negative numbers is undefined and that x*x overflows and is thus also
undefined. However, the second argument to IAND is
()' called in a constant expression
constexpr auto i = f();
~^~
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20171201 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83240
Bug ID: 83240
Summary: x86_64 vectorized sqrt of denormal yields -inf when
DAZ=0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 79989, which changed state.
Bug 79989 Summary: [7/8 Regression][CHKP] ICE in assign_temp, at function.c:968
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79989
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82878
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 79989 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
ith Ds = {int,
int}]':
main.cpp:11:11: required from here
main.cpp:5:57: error: mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding 'calc(n,
Ds{})'
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20171201 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
--- Comment #5 from Paul Romano ---
Got it; thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the noise! Guess I'll just
have to stop relying on this "feature" of previous versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83112
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Dec 1 14:26:31 2017
New Revision: 255309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255309=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-01 Michael Meissner
Back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83103
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Dec 1 14:26:31 2017
New Revision: 255309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255309=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-01 Michael Meissner
Back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83243
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83238
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Testing obvious patch (make code match comment):
Index: gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
===
--- gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82622, which changed state.
Bug 82622 Summary: [PDT] ICE in structure_alloc_comps, at
fortran/trans-array.c:8963
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82606, which changed state.
Bug 82606 Summary: [PDT] ICE in gfc_extract_int, at fortran/expr.c:641
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo