https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We have:
(gdb) p debug (lhs_vr)
int [s4_11(D), s4_11(D) + 2]$3 = void
(gdb) p debug (vr_result)
int [s4_11(D), s4_11(D) + 32767]$4 = void
(gdb) p cmp_min
$5 = 0
(gdb) p cmp_max
$6 = -1
and the
/* If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427
Bug ID: 88427
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have plus_expr in get_len, at tree.h:5617
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
They do with checking enabled: try -fchecking=1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56069
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] RA |[7 Regression] RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:25:47 2018
New Revision: 266941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266941=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88205
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:01:01 2018
New Revision: 266940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266940=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88205
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65794
--- Comment #4 from coypu ---
Hi,
It's probably a setup/configuration issue for everyone reporting this issue.
It's hard to debug, my patch helps with figuring out the problem - but doesn't
fix it.
I didn't ping this bug report because I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65794
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87118
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67729
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67729
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 23:49:14 2018
New Revision: 266936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266936=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88205
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88422
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88418
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88418
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88426
--- Comment #1 from Andrei Karas ---
Created attachment 45194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45194=edit
crash log
ced on gcc (GCC) 8.2.1 20181209
and debian unstable gcc-8 package.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88364
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> A simple fix is not to do the clobbers if there is a reference:
The fix in c#4 fixes the testcase in c#2 for me.
I'll give it a try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419
--- Comment #3 from Casey Carter ---
8.2 and 7.4 don't ICE: https://godbolt.org/z/VznOao. I was assuming that
r266224 (the fix for #52869) likely caused the regression, although I haven't
investigated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 20:23:06 2018
New Revision: 266934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266934=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88206
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88039
--- Comment #8 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Sun Dec 9 19:55:54 2018
New Revision: 266933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266933=gcc=rev
Log:
Generate and scan documentation output in Ddoc tests.
The tests in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 19:51:59 2018
New Revision: 266932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266932=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88206
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88402
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> But unfortunately today we don't manage to use the cmp-sbb trick for
> unsigned comparison against an immediate, i.e. for
>
> unsigned long baz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
Bug ID: 88425
Summary: suboptimal code for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88364
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
A simple fix is not to do the clobbers if there is a reference:
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(Revision 266250)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 19:10:57 2018
New Revision: 266930
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266930=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88206
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88411
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88411
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Dec 9 18:54:47 2018
New Revision: 266929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266929=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88411
* io/transfer.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88228
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88228
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 18:32:01 2018
New Revision: 266928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266928=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/88228
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88424
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Reiter ---
For context, we use gcc in gobject-introspection where we parse metadata from
the C comments and this breaks things when users on Windows have git set up to
auto convert line endings:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |preprocessor
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88424
Bug ID: 88424
Summary: Inserts newlines when preserving comments for a file
using Windows newlines
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88359
--- Comment #8 from Geert linders ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> 4.9.x is no longer supported, can you try a newer version of GCC?
What is the oldest version of GCC that I can try?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
But not sure if it's a regression: 7/8/9 ICEs whereas
$ xg++-6 -c 88419.C -std=c++17
88419.C:5:48: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion
before ‘;’ token
template ref_view(R&) ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88228
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 17:09:15 2018
New Revision: 266927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266927=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/88228
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67729
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Three years later, enhancement not implemented.
See
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23490
for an example where glibc would have benefited from this enhancement.
If someone can give me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88366
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88228
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Dec 9 16:32:48 2018
New Revision: 266926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266926=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-09 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/88228
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to trashyankes from comment #10)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > Fixed for GCC 9, GCC 8.3 and GCC 7.4.
>
> One question, I look on test case and see:
>
> ```
> f1():
> xor eax,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #10 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Fixed for GCC 9, GCC 8.3 and GCC 7.4.
One question, I look on test case and see:
```
f1():
xor eax, eax
xor edx, edx
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88423
Bug ID: 88423
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in begin_move_insn, at
sched-ebb.c:175
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88422
Bug ID: 88422
Summary: collect2.exe: fatal error: lto-wrapper returned 1 exit
status: file not recognized: file truncated
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26475
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421
--- Comment #1 from coypu ---
suggested change: put #include_next outside of include guards?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421
Bug ID: 88421
Summary: compat C headers break building GCC with GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88411
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
This looks like it could do the trick:
Index: io/transfer.c
===
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88411
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Something glaringly obvious just struck me: The test case
has synchronous writes for a file which is opened asynchronously.
This may or may not have been intended. It is certainly a bug
not to get this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52813
Dimitar Dimitrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dinuxbg at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88420
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Sun Dec 9 12:47:35 2018
New Revision: 266920
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266920=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR88420] Fortran OpenACC "Clause SEQ conflicts with INDEPENDENT"
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88420
Bug ID: 88420
Summary: Fortran OpenACC "Clause SEQ conflicts with
INDEPENDENT"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, patch
57 matches
Mail list logo
