https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111714
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111714
--- Comment #3 from Carlos Galvez ---
Thanks for the quick response! Unfortunately we are stuck on GCC 9 for reasons
so I'll try to shuffle the code around a bit to make it work :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111714
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From IV-OPTs dup:
inv_expr 3: (-() _13 - () ) - -1
inv_expr 4: -() _13 - ()
That is totally bogus (that was even in GCC 8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111714
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
looks like a bug in GCC 9.x, note that's EOL and thus will receive no fixes.
You can try to bisect where it was fixed since GCC 10.1 seems to work. There
might be a duplicate fixed bugreport for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111714
Bug ID: 111714
Summary: Strange behavior when casting std::size_t to bool, UB
or compiler bug?
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107227
--- Comment #3 from Spencer Bryngelson ---
Thanks @tschwinge! I found a few other replicate issues now that I look further
back, going at least to gcc10. Is there a plan to fix this? It seems important
(at least to me).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107227
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Spencer Bryngelson from comment #0)
> 5 | !$acc parallel loop private(arr(1:10))
> |1
> Error: Syntax error in OpenMP variable list at (1)
That's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107227
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107227
Bug ID: 107227
Summary: Compiler bug in private allocatable array in OpenACC
compute statement
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98635
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98635
Bug ID: 98635
Summary: ad-hoc requirement without semicolon creates internal
compiler bug
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Apparently, this is some kind of cygwin problem.
Did you report the problem to cygwin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Murat Tekeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #20 from Murat Tekeev ---
Unfortunately, I was happy too soon. I made a mistake - with Fortran 7.4 these
files still do not compile. Apparently
I installed the latest version of Cygwin on three different machines, the
installation is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #19 from Murat Tekeev ---
Unfortunately, I was happy too soon. I made a mistake - with Fortran 7.4 these
files still do not compile. Apparently
I installed the latest version of Cygwin on three different machines, the
installation is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #18 from Murat Tekeev ---
Unfortunately, I was happy too soon. I made a mistake - with Fortran 7.4 these
files still do not compile. Apparently
I installed the latest version of Cygwin on three different machines, the
installation is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #17 from Murat Tekeev ---
Thank you very much, Thomas!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #15 from Murat Tekeev ---
I downloaded the current version of Cygwin and reinstalled it all again
(previously removing everything that was installed).
On a 64-bit version of Cygwin and now everything runs fine with gfortran
7.4.0-1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #14 from Murat Tekeev ---
I will establish anew Cygwin and I will try to repeat compilation.
When I used version 7.3, everything was good.
Eventually, there are also other compilers, except gfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #13 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
It seems that the problem comes from your installation.
Did you build gfortran yourself or did you get it from some binary
distribution? If the later, from where? Did you report the problem to them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
OK, I had one other test fail which is one that requires inspection that my
testsuite compares the output to a reference file. This required only updating
my reference file to accomodate the fix where we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Didn't someone just do some work on MAX1?
pr88658, fix at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg6.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86-64-pc-cygwin
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #6 from Murat ---
Hello Dominique!
I took the test file from here:
http://www.fortran-2000.com/ArnaudRecipes/fcvs21_f95.html (file
fcvs21_f95.tar.bz2, modified version that conforms to Fortran 95).
I tried to compile with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #5 from Murat ---
Created attachment 45337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45337=edit
files of tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #3 from Murat ---
Created attachment 45335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45335=edit
gfortran verson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #4 from Murat ---
Created attachment 45336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45336=edit
error message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that I run the tests with the '-w -fno-sign-zero -std=legacy' options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
Bug ID: 88653
Summary: Is this a compiler bug?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84989
Bug ID: 84989
Summary: _mm512_broadcast_f32x4 triggers internal compiler bug
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
/usr/bin/ld: ../../../../../scripts/src/libutils.a(strformat.o): relocation
R_ARM_MOVW_ABS_NC against `_ZNKSt5ctypeIcE8do_widenEc' can not be used when
making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
^^^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
||--libdir=/usr/lib
||--libexecdir=/usr/
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Perfeito ---
rb6502 commented 22 hours ago •
Sorry, but that's a compiler bug, not something we can address. MAME is known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413
Bug ID: 83413
Summary: that's a compiler bug, not something we can address.
MAME is known to be buildable for other ARM targets
(e.g. Raspberry Pi) right now so it appears
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM, nick <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings Gcc Folks,
> Either this is me doing something very simple in a school assignment for
> creating a basic hashtable
> or a compiler bug. I am currently seeing this error during my tables run on
>
Greetings Gcc Folks,
Either this is me doing something very simple in a school assignment for
creating a basic hashtable
or a compiler bug. I am currently seeing this error during my tables run on
copy constructor call during
the tester and have set to find out why it doesn't work. After some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Jan 26 17:29:02 2016
New Revision: 232839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232839=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60908
* trans-mem.c (tm_region_init): Mark entry block as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spear at cse dot lehigh.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
--- Comment #4 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still happens with r232693.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69319
Bug ID: 69319
Summary: Suspect compiler bug
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69319
--- Comment #1 from Frediano Ziglio ---
Created attachment 37375
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37375=edit
.i file of the single source program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69319
--- Comment #3 from Frediano Ziglio ---
Created attachment 37376
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37376=edit
original file split into pure C + main
I don't know if may help (I hope so).
I split the file into a pure C (no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69319
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69319
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69319
--- Comment #4 from Frediano Ziglio ---
-O0, -O1 or -fno-strict-aliasing all works.
But I don't understand how gcc can generate such code.
What am I missing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
Bug ID: 60908
Summary: compiler bug related to trans-mem.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
--- Comment #1 from Nobuhiro SUGANUMA suganuma at hiraki dot
is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ---
Created attachment 32643
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32643action=edit
source code
Because of file size limit, I attached the source code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60908
--- Comment #2 from Nobuhiro SUGANUMA suganuma at hiraki dot
is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ---
Created attachment 32644
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32644action=edit
Link to .ii file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59705
Bug ID: 59705
Summary: possible compiler bug regarding SFINAE (program
compiles fine)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54522
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54522
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54522
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-09
15:27:29 UTC ---
The test case with -O -fno-automatic compiles on powerpc-apple-darwin9 with gcc
3.4.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54522
Bug #: 54522
Summary: Using g77 -O -fno-automatic, reassignment of a
variable in an if statement in a function triggers a
compiler bug.
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54522
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-07
21:40:04 UTC ---
g77 is no longer supported. It is over 6 years old now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
Bug #: 50292
Summary: compiler bug box - pl-io.ads
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
--- Comment #1 from Gary Barnes garynot at comcast dot net 2011-09-05
04:09:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25192
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25192
gnatchop file containing the source
gnatchop format file with the source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
--- Comment #2 from Gary Barnes garynot at comcast dot net 2011-09-05
04:10:32 UTC ---
gcc \
-c \
-gnata \
-gnatE \
-fstack-check \
-gnatef \
-gnatf \
-gnatm50 \
-gnatn \
-gnato \
-gnatU \
-gnatwa \
-gnatwe \
-gnatwi \
-gnatwj \
-gnatwK \
-gnatwl
--- Comment #2 from wpatscher at web dot de 2008-10-24 06:44 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
If you are compiling Fortran, use gfortran, not gcc.
thank you Paolo for your comment;for my example the correct command:
gfortran-4.3 test.for -o test.aus
with compiler-exe file in my
revision 140831] (SUSE
Linux)
kindly W.Patscher
--
Summary: Fortran compiler bug or lost some files during
installation openSuse11.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-23 08:06
---
If you are compiling Fortran, use gfortran, not gcc.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from seppo at totalviewtech dot com 2008-07-23 18:46 ---
Hi Andrew,
Sorry about the delay in response. We had some issues w/ installation and this
fell through the cracks. Anyways, I just tested gcc 4.2.3 and it fails the same
way as 4.1.1.
Thanks,
Seppo
XXX
I would like to report a probable gcc compiler bug that is to present on AIX
5.3, but not on x86 linux. The problem is that Totalview and gdb fail to see a
static value 'stupify' when the program is compiled and linked using gcc 4.1.1.
If I cross link and compile (e.g. compile using gcc and link
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-11 21:14 ---
Can you try 4.1.2 or 4.2.x? 4.1.1 is getting a bit old.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from seppo at totalviewtech dot com 2007-10-11 21:37 ---
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the quick reply.
We do not have more recent versions installed on AIX, but I have sent just now
an installation request. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks,
Seppo
--
A Moore wrote:
Using floats, floor() returns wrong result, as shown in this program:
I assume you are doing this on an x86-linux machine, in which case this
is the classic x86 excess-precision problem, as detailed in PR 323 in
our bugzilla bug database.
The old x87 FP stack uses 80-bit
Using floats, floor() returns wrong result, as shown in this program:
( BTW, using gcc 4.0.1 )
#include cmath
#include iostream
int
main()
{
floatx( 3.31682e-7 );
floaty( -292.608 );
floatz( 19.5072 );
std::cout Using floats, floor() returns the wrong result:
79 matches
Mail list logo
