https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 3 16:56:39 2015
New Revision: 226517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226517root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-08-03 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:17:51 2015
New Revision: 226521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226521root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-08-03 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I should have written that I tried it not only on the test case I sent
but on the whole fortran
testsuite in gcc/testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:49:42PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
It would have been helpful if you had included a diff
for your assert in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I confirm the patch works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:05:05AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 07:42:17PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Did you put the gcc_assert line in the source?
If you have not a sanitized version you will not see the null pointer
dereferencing
Anyway this is what you asked me: (please not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
1) No explicit options, just the default ones, -S will suffice.
2) Sorry, I did not specify the target is x86-64, but I got the same with -m32
3) sub is not needed, the code should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
