http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48402
Stuart Ambler sambler at nd dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sambler at nd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543
--- Comment #5 from Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com 2011-09-28
07:30:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I have no problem with
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-release/configure --enable-clocale=gnu
--with-system-zlib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
08:21:46 UTC ---
Built via
#4 0x00696c37 in build_nop (type=0x2ab4a498, expr=0x2cef96c0)
at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50485
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 08:48:05 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Sep 28 08:48:00 2011
New Revision: 179309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179309
Log:
2011-09-28 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50485
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50546
Bug #: 50546
Summary: gfortran should not accept missing operator (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
Bug #: 50547
Summary: dummy procedure argument of PURE shall be PURE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50548
Bug #: 50548
Summary: gfortran -fcheck=all run time would be nice to detect
different shapes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50549
Bug #: 50549
Summary: should detect different type parameters in structure
constructors (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
Bug #: 50550
Summary: does not recognize pointer variable at initialization
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50551
Bug #: 50551
Summary: Argumentless NULL() cannot be used with assumed-length
dummy (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
Bug #: 50552
Summary: type name cannot be statement function dummy argument
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
Bug #: 50553
Summary: statement function cannot be target (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Bug #: 50554
Summary: INQUIRE cannot redefine DO index(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Bug #: 50555
Summary: synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument
not allowed (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
Bug #: 50556
Summary: cannot save namelist group name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-28
09:20:40 UTC ---
I meant checking static expressions at compilation time, as in my example.
This has no cost at run time.
You proposed a run time check that still should be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
Bug #: 50557
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Register pressure increase after
reassociation (x86, 32 bits)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 11:14:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
This one is trivial:
Unfortunately this causes one testsuite regression:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_derived_4.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2011-09-28
11:52:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 25373
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25373
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
12:13:50 UTC ---
The fix for 49749 is intended to remove dependencies between loop iterations.
One possibility would be to condition the changes on the presence of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #118 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
12:21:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #117)
Any chance of this being backported to older branches? Seems quite useful for
the future.
I don't think this (very good, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #119 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-28 12:23:51 UTC ---
If you ask me, no way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
12:38:29 UTC ---
Thanks for gold support. GCC support is now posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01818.html
We miss the GNU LD variant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
Bug #: 50558
Summary: Illegal program not detected (record component with no
supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
--- Comment #1 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov eugen at debian dot org 2011-09-28
13:08:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 25375
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25375
Invalid program correctly detected
This is test program with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #112 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
13:33:03 UTC ---
OK, the problem turns out to be configure issue. Configure script greps asm
output and with slim LTO it does not find there what it expects disabling
hidden
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
13:47:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 28 13:47:12 2011
New Revision: 179313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179313
Log:
2011-09-28 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
--- Comment #2 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov eugen at debian dot org 2011-09-28
13:51:43 UTC ---
Output with -gnatG looks different for two programs.
For good.ada:
with pkg;
procedure test is
begin
T1b : pkg__data_record := (
data =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #120 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-09-28 13:58:03 UTC ---
OK, somewhat understandable to keep evil legacy code compiling.
Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct define
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #121 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2011-09-28 14:20:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct
define
if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543
Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #122 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
15:34:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct
define
if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
15:35:22 UTC ---
First blush, I would say this is malformed code, even if we produce only a
warning with -Wreturn-type. And after all we produce only a warning also for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
15:41:27 UTC ---
Yep, [stmt.return]/2 Flowing off the end of a function is equivalent to a
return with no value; this results in undefined behavior in a value-returning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 15:54:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
With the -O2 flag and in a very specialized circumstance, the product of a
complexdouble and a double has the wrong sign.
The problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
--- Comment #3 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov eugen at debian dot org 2011-09-28
15:58:00 UTC ---
After reading Ada 2005 rationale I think that the program in attachment 25374
is valid (components with no default values should be left undefined) and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
16:01:45 UTC ---
FWIW, the reflector thread starting with c++std-core-12400 has lots of
rationale why a diagnostic isn't required. One reason is C compatibility as
it's only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
16:02:05 UTC ---
HJ, I think the correct output, showing that we are *not* miscompiling or
something is:
(-0.0,-1.0)x100.0=(-0.0,-100.0)
exactly what you are seeing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
16:05:21 UTC ---
To answer your specific question, flowing isn't defined, neither is the flow
of control, but my reading is it means at runtime, for the reasons in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
16:13:33 UTC ---
Ok, thanks Jonathan. Thus, let's see first if somebody can actually reproduce
the issue!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
16:23:40 UTC ---
Of course if Davide could try something more recent than 4.4.4, it would be
useful. Note that on Linux even current 4.4 branch is Ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49126
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
Bug #: 50559
Summary: g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration
value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #1 from dnetserrspam at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 17:24:18 UTC ---
When g++ compiles the attached code it complains (correctly) that the value for
GREEN overflows. Then it reports that it is confused by earlier errors and
bails out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
17:27:25 UTC ---
Hmm, it does not ICE on the trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
17:27:41 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef enum ColorTag { RED = 2147483647, GREEN, BLUE } Color;
int main()
{
Color x = GREEN;
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
17:34:44 UTC ---
So far have been able to figure out that diagnostic_classify_diagnostic
apparently sets correctly context-n_classification_history to 1 when the
pragma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
17:56:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Reduced testcase:
Just to be sure: Is this testcase rejected? If so, this seems in violation to
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 18:03:50
UTC ---
It is fixed by revision 172430:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00625.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
18:21:52 UTC ---
probably related to PR 48536
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
Bug #: 50560
Summary: g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from
templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48536
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnetserrspam at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-09-28
18:28:31 UTC ---
I just enabled Bugzilla debug mode, and the relevant error is:
undef error - Insecure dependency in parameter 3 of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
18:37:37 UTC ---
your hack to allow separately compiled template components isn't valid C++,
but you can make the code valid by putting an explicit instantiation
declaration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-09-28
19:19:28 UTC ---
This is totally crazy. Perl complains that the attachment ID is tainted if you
are logged out, but not if you are logged in. And the error comes right
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49913
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
--- Comment #3 from Mark marktrinh.junk at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 19:38:05
UTC ---
Thanks for the quick response. Your solution works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bugzilla suffers an |Bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543
--- Comment #7 from Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com 2011-09-28
19:42:52 UTC ---
Anybody but me and Evgeny can confirm that?
I've tried really general path of build it and got fail to compare different
stages...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-09-28 19:45:48 UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:20:40AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
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=48420
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
20:05:32 UTC ---
Oops, sorry, got confused, in C++0x it's an hard error. Uhmmm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
Bug #: 50561
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE when compiling zlib with -O2
-floop-flatten -floop-strip-mine
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2011-09-28 20:59:07 UTC
---
Created attachment 25378
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25378
pre-processed source of the file that triggers the ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
21:09:59 UTC ---
Thanks, the usual misinterpretation, in other terms (honestly, in this
specific case I didn't look at the actual code closely enough to even try to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50562
Bug #: 50562
Summary: configure: --without-newlib does not disable libgloss
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:28:59 UTC ---
The patch regtests cleanly. I'm going to commit as obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41431
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-09-28 21:36:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
What happened to issue Core/983?
It was originally accepted but later found out to be the wrong solution,
therefore it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:40:30 UTC ---
This patch causes one testsuite failure on elemental_args_check_2.f90, due to a
slightly changed error message.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49486
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28
21:43:06 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Sep 28 21:43:01 2011
New Revision: 179320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179320
Log:
PR target/49486
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-28
21:48:08 UTC ---
Excellent, then could you possibly comment on the implication for this PR? (for
you it's easy, I'm sure)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-28 22:04:51 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 28 22:04:48 2011
New Revision: 179321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179321
Log:
/cp
2011-09-28
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
