https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89480
Bug ID: 89480
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:22160
with the template argument force conversion.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89459
--- Comment #2 from Andres Takach ---
Tried 8.3.0 (took hours to compile!) and it has the same behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89416
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orion at cora dot nwra.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sun Feb 24 02:01:05 2019
New Revision: 269174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269174=gcc=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Fix _ and tf_ splitters
This patch fixes a bug that can result in "insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> Martin: Can you please take a look at the last comment?
There is very little to go on in comment #13. Please provide a complete test
case that reproduces the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89174
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Just tried out r265170 on powerpc64le (because that machine
boots faster :-), and the test case also segfaults.
Hmm...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84605
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81009
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479
Bug ID: 89479
Summary: __restrict
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86119
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86119
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 23 22:16:29 2019
New Revision: 269170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269170=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/86119
Backport from trunk
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89478
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I think the uninitialized variable makes the initialization not constexpr (and
indeed gcc/clang complain if you try to declare test constexpr). Then we hit
the well-known missed optimization that gcc is unable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
Neil Carlson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89478
Bug ID: 89478
Summary: missed optimization for lambda expression when
variable is uninitialized when declared
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83443
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89174
--- Comment #3 from Neil Carlson ---
r265171 is the commit that broke the 9.0 trunk; r265171 segfaults but r265170
works correctly. I haven't been able to pinpoint where this stuff was
back-ported to the 8 branch, but it definitely was. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89473
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89477
Bug ID: 89477
Summary: Incorrect CTAD deduction guides for set and multiset
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > x &= 0xaa55;
> > x = __builtin_bswap16 (x);
> > if (x & 0xaa55)
> >
> >
> > I think that should be:
> > x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> x &= 0xaa55;
> x = __builtin_bswap16 (x);
> if (x & 0xaa55)
>
>
> I think that should be:
> x &= 0xaa55;
> x = __builtin_bswap16 (x);
> if (x & 0x55aa)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
x &= 0xaa55;
x = __builtin_bswap16 (x);
if (x & 0xaa55)
I think that should be:
x &= 0xaa55;
x = __builtin_bswap16 (x);
if (x & 0x55aa)
instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89476
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89476
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Feb 23 19:58:52 2019
New Revision: 269165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269165=gcc=rev
Log:
Include "../../../libgfortran/ISO_Fortran_binding.h"
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Feb 23 19:39:35 2019
New Revision: 269164
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269164=gcc=rev
Log:
driver: Also prune joined switches with negation
When -march=native is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, that should be:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/io_context
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/io_context
@@ -134,7 +134,8 @@ inline namespace v1
io_context* _M_ctx;
};
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This might help, but probably isn't the right fix:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/io_context
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/io_context
@@ -134,7 +134,8 @@ inline namespace v1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Created attachment 45806 [details]
> Check for working xmlcatalog
>
> Does this help?
I'm bootstrapping right now, and it seems the problem is gone.
Looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/963
>
> Looks more like you don't have those dtd installed ...
The point of the configure checks is to find out if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/963
Looks more like you don't have those dtd installed ...
This referenced bug report is from 8 years ago complaining about the same
thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89476
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
They should use
#include "../../../libgfortran/ISO_Fortran_binding.h"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89476
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Created attachment 45806 [details]
> Check for working xmlcatalog
>
> Does this help?
I'm giving it a spin, it will take an hour or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89476
Bug ID: 89476
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_5.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> Is this the same output as on your sytem?
No, my version is newer, but I've tested your version previously. You have
libxslt 1.1.28, and it's buggy for some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 45806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45806=edit
Check for working xmlcatalog
Does this help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> It's a Suse-specific bug, the same version of xsltproc works fine for me on
> Fedora.
The version on my system is
xsltproc -V
Using libxml 20904, libxslt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > Apparently Suse's xsltproc 1.1.32 works properly, so please either uninstall
> > xsltproc or upgrade to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 23 18:44:54 2019
New Revision: 269163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269163=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/88117
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Apparently Suse's xsltproc 1.1.32 works properly, so please either uninstall
> xsltproc or upgrade to a fixed version.
It is an absolute no-no to access the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See 'man xmlcatalog' and http://www.xmlsoft.org/catalog.html and
http://www.jclark.com/sp/catalog.htm
The xsltproc command is correct, and does not connect to the internet, it just
queries the local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No. It's a key used to lookup an entry in the xmlcatalog database.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Your xsltproc is broken, the --nonet option means it should not try to
> download DTDs.
So, the hyperlink can be safely removed or redirected to /dev/null?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89464
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> The problem is in https://github.com/Silicondust/libhdhomerun:
> hdhomerun_os_posix.h
> Which does:
> #if !defined(alignas)
> #define alignas(n)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89464
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
alignas is a keyword in C++, it's not supposed to be a macro at all.
GCC 8.3.0 now uses alignas in the standard library headers, which is OK because
it's a C++ feature supported by the compiler. Stop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Apparently Suse's xsltproc 1.1.32 works properly, so please either uninstall
xsltproc or upgrade to a fixed version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your xsltproc is broken, the --nonet option means it should not try to download
DTDs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84387
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 23 18:07:10 2019
New Revision: 269161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269161=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/84387
* trans-io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45805
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45805=edit
gcc9-pr89475.patch
Untested improvement. GCC10 material I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
Bug ID: 89475
Summary: Teach ccp about __builtin_bswap{16,32,64}
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83443
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89266
--- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #9)
> A patch that does this has been posted here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00153.html
This patch also fixes PR88326.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89474
Bug ID: 89474
Summary: ice in df_reg_chain_verify_unmarked, at df-scan.c:3995
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
--- Comment #12 from tk at tkoenig dot net ---
> --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The ICE is now gone, but I get segmentation fault at run time. If I comment
> the
> line
>
> z = (z)
>
> I get
>
> ab
>
> Program received
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89473
Bug ID: 89473
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-10.c (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89472
Bug ID: 89472
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
scan-assembler-times
DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!@;\\|]*[#/!@;\\|]+
+[^#/!@\\|]*\\(DIE \\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87010
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |inline-asm
--- Comment #2 from John
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89471
Bug ID: 89471
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr84941.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The ICE is now gone, but I get segmentation fault at run time. If I comment the
line
z = (z)
I get
ab
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
Is this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89464
--- Comment #6 from Milhouse ---
Andrew, can you tell me what the correct algnas() definition should be, as
everywhere it is used seems to be passing a single argument. This is the usage
in shared_ptr_base.h:
alignas(type_info) static constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87010
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 45803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45803=edit
Patch
Fixes test failure on hppa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89470
Bug ID: 89470
Summary: [GCOV] wrong frequencies when if statement is executed
after a complicated "?:"statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89469
Bug ID: 89469
Summary: [GCOV] wrong frequencies for the first statement in
the for(;;) block
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 23 14:59:50 2019
New Revision: 269160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269160=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/88117
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89419
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89419
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sat Feb 23 14:54:23 2019
New Revision: 269159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269159=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89419
* g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-89419.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89419
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89468
Bug ID: 89468
Summary: [GCOV] wrong frequencies when the block is empty in a
if statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88294
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88294
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sat Feb 23 14:05:31 2019
New Revision: 269158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269158=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88294 - ICE with non-constant noexcept-specifier.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
> Author: pault
> Date: Sat Feb 23 13:18:47 2019
> New Revision: 269157
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269157=gcc=rev
> Log:
> 2019-02-23 Paul Thomas
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88117
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 23 13:18:47 2019
New Revision: 269157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269157=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/88117
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record, after revision r267902 the test in pr34500 comment 0 gives an
ICE instead of a wrong error (see pr34500 comment 6).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89467
Bug ID: 89467
Summary: [GCOV] wrong freqencies when there is comparison
operator in the right side of the assignment statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
--- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #16)
> The warning has been relaxed for GCC 9 in r269125.
Thanks, I can confirm elfutils builds fine without warnings with GCC 9 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
Bug ID: 89466
Summary: Accessing the Internet while boostrapping
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89385
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89465
Bug ID: 89465
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with setjmp and longjmp function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89366
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89366
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 23 12:18:44 2019
New Revision: 269156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269156=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/89385
PR fortran/89366
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89385
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 23 12:18:44 2019
New Revision: 269156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269156=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/89385
PR fortran/89366
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 23 11:49:47 2019
New Revision: 269155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269155=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-23 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/71066
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Feb 23 10:04:41 2019
New Revision: 269154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269154=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ada/89349
Backport from mainline
2018-05-25 Arnaud
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Feb 23 10:04:23 2019
New Revision: 269153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269153=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ada/89349
Backport from mainline
2018-05-25 Arnaud
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89448
--- Comment #2 from Mark RISON ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Because 'complex' is from a system header probably ...
It still ought to give a diagnostic, no?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89464
--- Comment #5 from Milhouse ---
Thanks very much for digging into this so quickly and identifying the cause,
I'll feed it back to the add-on author.
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
