https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51654
Mathias Gaunard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> OK, the mismatched declaration types are:
> void (struct array01_integer(kind=4) &, float & restrict,
> logical(kind=4) *)
> and
> void (struct gfc_array_i4 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79917
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68812
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46453=edit
Patch
Testsuite change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90753
Bug ID: 90753
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds with an extern index in
out-of-bounds range
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jun 4 21:52:32 2019
New Revision: 271927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271927=gcc=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2019-06-04 Bill Schmidt
PR target/78263
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dushistov at mail dot ru
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71205
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90752
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90752
Bug ID: 90752
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing the result of string
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51654
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89531
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90639
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #1 from Sven Schnelle ---
John David Anglin can provide a fix for this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #2 from Sven Schnelle ---
John David Anglin can provide a fix for this issue.
=hppa-linux-gnu --enable-languages=c,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 10.0.0 20190604 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
Bug ID: 90750
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in cp_default_conversion, at
cp/typeck.c:2162
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Bug ID: 90749
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of,
at cp/pt.c:13462
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748
Bug ID: 90748
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15564
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Beliveau ---
Adding missing return on line 4 lets it compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Bug ID: 90747
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the mismatched declaration types are:
void (struct array01_integer(kind=4) &, float & restrict,
logical(kind=4) *)
and
void (struct gfc_array_i4 * restrict, struct gfc_array_r4 * restrict,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
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=77278
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
Btw, I wonder what happens at
> the call boundary inside a single fortran module where
> the caller passes a dim[2] array to a subroutine
> handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46451=edit
Preprocessed source of library file for LTO mismatch
Hi,
here is a test case (preprocessed source from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57309
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90746
Bug ID: 90746
Summary: __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc should not be tail called
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90745
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90745
Bug ID: 90745
Summary: [9/10 Regression] std::tuple::operator= parameter
causes error outside immediate context
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch (finally) submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00184.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90736
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Plain int is enough:
constexpr int fn(const int b) { return b; }
constexpr int c = fn(alignof(int));
alignas(c) char d;
We have an INTEGER_CST with const int type; that doesn't seem entirely correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 4 14:48:38 2019
New Revision: 271910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271910=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/60531 - Wrong error about unresolved overloaded function
For PR60531, GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90744
Bug ID: 90744
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Bogus length for character
temporaries passed to external procedures since
r268992
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90743
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't understand how you could do that and why.
Unless you perform a whole function optimization, gimplification and omp
lowering and expansion etc. work on individual statements, there is no analysis
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90743
Bug ID: 90743
Summary: Device-side 'malloc' for Fortran 'allocatable' scalar
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90742
Bug ID: 90742
Summary: OpenACC/OpenMP target offloading: Fortran
'allocatable' scalars in 'firstprivate' clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
--- Comment #2 from Ghyslain Leclerc ---
I wanted to add that on top of not complaining about the default parameter
redefinition, when the default parameter is provided in the definition only
(not the declaration of the template), the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
Ghyslain Leclerc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ghleclerc at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90715
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe the
* cp-tree.h (CP_OMP_CLAUSE_INFO): Allow for any clauses up to _condvar_
instead of only up to linear.
hunk of r271907 should have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
Bug ID: 90741
Summary: Unreachable second '__builtin_malloc' for scalar
'allocatable'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
A small self-contained example would be welcome, I can take a look why aliasing
oracle does not mess things up.
Concerning the warning, those are quite hard to do - the line information
should point to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90715
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 04 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I do remember this. I think we settled on the above
>> (previously you had dim[7] in the library I think) to be
>> compatible. Still a C simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
>
> --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
> >
> > Yeah, I do remember this. I think we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Yeah, I do remember this. I think we settled on the above
> (previously you had dim[7] in the library I think) to be
> compatible. Still a C simple testcase complains:
>
> typedef struct { int ndim;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90726
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 4 09:05:10 2019
New Revision: 271903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271903=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-04 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90726
* tree-chrec.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90728
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think it's [0, -1] but eventually using an unsigned type for the domain.
IIRC we have "pattern matching" for this in stor-layout.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #22 from Qi Feng ---
Two more similar ones:
x <= y && x == ( 0 or XXX_MIN ) --> x == ( 0 or XXX_MIN )
x >= y && x == ( UXXX_MAX or XXX_MAX ) --> x == ( UXXX_MAX or XXX_MAX )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89823
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Göran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
>
> --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
> In libgfortran, we have
>
> #define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 4 08:09:16 2019
New Revision: 271902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271902=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90738
Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so this goes wrong in the sense that aliasing_component_refs_p sees
*int[] vs int[][1] but the int[][1] access has the actual reference tree
(un-valueized) int[][i]. Then we go
if (same_p2 == 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
In libgfortran, we have
#define GFC_ARRAY_DESCRIPTOR(type) \
struct {\
type *base_addr;\
size_t offset;\
dtype_type dtype;\
index_type span;\
descriptor_dimension dim[];\
}
and then later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
--- Comment #3 from Valentine ---
Yep, it uses GCC extension.
Interesting observation that it complains about the size of buffer, that looks
to be correct as if I change to
===
char buf[SIZE];
char* pbuf = buf;
bar([pbuf, ](auto&...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Also, why does the warning refers to the variable as "" when it
>clearly has a name?
Because it is most likely not buf but rather the size of buf that is
complaining about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 90544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90544
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
Bug ID: 90740
Summary: regression - Incorrect warning (is used uninitialized
in this function)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
--- Comment #1 from Valentine ---
Simpler example without any include's:
===
volatile int SIZE = 100;
template
void bar(T t, U... u) {
t(u...);
}
template
void foo(Ts&... out) {
char buf[SIZE];
bar([, ](auto&... x) { (x, ...); },
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
87 matches
Mail list logo
