https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93372
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef07c7a5884c130b48e653993bfaaf1ae9e6dedd
commit r11-2048-gef07c7a5884c130b48e653993bfaaf1ae9e6dedd
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #6 from Antoni ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #5)
> Created attachment 48867 [details]
> Minimal reproducer
>
> I've done some exhaustive testing of which combinations of casts are
> allowed. It seems that any program of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Created attachment 48867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48867=edit
Minimal reproducer
I've done some exhaustive testing of which combinations of casts are allowed.
It seems that any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96161
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85714
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The enumeration type can take any value from (Foo)INT_MIN to (Foo)INT_MAX,
> and likewise for Bar. Your switches are not exhaustive.
>
> I think we need a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96163
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the issue is that the representation for pre-existing vectors leaves
us with vector defs outside of the region (and not immediately before the
region begin) which then confuses the logic in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Bug ID: 96179
Summary: g++-10.1 silently doesn't push_back the return of a
void function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92586
--- Comment #9 from epagone ---
Bug persists in version 10.1:
$ gfortran-10 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran-10
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none:amdgcn-amdhsa:hsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba8fe4b4832e30277f2e4a73b5d35b2e55074d07
commit r11-2054-gba8fe4b4832e30277f2e4a73b5d35b2e55074d07
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96181
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arturo Laurenzi from comment #0)
> Now, I understand the code snipped is probably broken. However, this change
> breaks old code that would work just fine by ignoring the undefined return
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96161
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba8fe4b4832e30277f2e4a73b5d35b2e55074d07
commit r11-2054-gba8fe4b4832e30277f2e4a73b5d35b2e55074d07
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #15 from Ian McInerney ---
Martin, can you backport you compiler patch to the GCC10 branch so it is fixed
there as well? As I said, this makes the warning essentially useless to use on
large codebases with the current release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
One or both of r11-1853 and r11-1899 should be backported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96181
Bug ID: 96181
Summary: Missing return statement now leads to crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f49c66ed4e060c333d8bcd5e4ae127ab7bca15b
commit r10-8468-g6f49c66ed4e060c333d8bcd5e4ae127ab7bca15b
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60a26b155642a58e9033c650d5c38b28ab471d34
commit r10-8469-g60a26b155642a58e9033c650d5c38b28ab471d34
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a4770f0394751860ee54520b23007938907ac33
commit r11-2052-g7a4770f0394751860ee54520b23007938907ac33
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83280
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There is now info about this on the wiki:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#enum_switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93372
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a2ae08b02d185a11e3e525e100ba637ce81c7ff
commit r11-2050-g9a2ae08b02d185a11e3e525e100ba637ce81c7ff
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
Bug ID: 96180
Summary: gcc.dg/torture/pr96133.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Hmm, yeah - the testcase assumes the target upps alignment of 'a' a bit from
> its requirement of 'int' ... guess changing a to require bigger
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70493
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Bug 94042 depends on bug 94148, which changed state.
Bug 94148 Summary: The DF framework uses bb->aux, which is for passes only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94148
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94148
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
a patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549713.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89417
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #0)
> In case helgrind is correct, it seems that there are some issues behind
> std::scoped_lock, since it was explicitly designed for solving issues with
> lock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96181
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is also mentioned on https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/porting_to.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fd124a23664c712f1bb1a7e91fa23fe83d72c0b
commit r11-2064-g4fd124a23664c712f1bb1a7e91fa23fe83d72c0b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #10 from Jiarui Hong ---
Please note that there seems to be two issues here that affect different
versions of gcc:
(From the comment of g...@pkh.me)
https://godbolt.org/z/xc59TM
This fails in 9.3.0 but works in 10.1.0.
(From the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
Bug ID: 96182
Summary: GCC accepts constexpr function with no
return-statement
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||19808
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96185
Bug ID: 96185
Summary: Enhancement: Please add a builtin to count bindings in
[dcl.struct.bind]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
files with growth:
obj/gcc/calls.c.325t.statistics:320 4958 | 5571
obj/gcc/prefix.c.325t.statistics:320 115 | 118
yes, that's all of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #8 from AJM ---
> > >> I won't comment on the questionable programming idiom of placing
> > >> a common block in a module, which kind of defeats the niceties of
> > >> a module.
> > > If somebody wants to transition your code from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95114
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5834e96a08fd8b86a42428f38a95903d2f1de202
commit r11-2055-g5834e96a08fd8b86a42428f38a95903d2f1de202
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96170
--- Comment #2 from Will Wray ---
A much better idea, submitted here as bug 96185
and simultaneously submitted to Clang and MSVC -
a portable builtin to count bindings in [dcl.struct.bind]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #5 from AJM ---
Also, in case it wasn't clear,
> Breakpoint 2, boo () at a.f90:9
> 9 write(*, '(A, I3)') "moduleVar=", n
> (gdb) p n
> $2 = 123
> (gdb) p moduleVar
> No symbol "moduleVar" in current context.
> (gdb) p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94791
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
commit r11-2056-g463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bc95be3bb8c8138e2e87c1c11c84bfede989d61
commit r11-2057-g2bc95be3bb8c8138e2e87c1c11c84bfede989d61
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b097c7a27fb0796b2653a1d003cbf6b7a69d8961
commit r11-2058-gb097c7a27fb0796b2653a1d003cbf6b7a69d8961
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a391e06f953c3390b14020d8cacb6d55f81b2b9
commit r11-2059-g6a391e06f953c3390b14020d8cacb6d55f81b2b9
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
commit r11-2056-g463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95981
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f069011019c9df670969ea283fd4d139f34a925
commit r11-2061-g3f069011019c9df670969ea283fd4d139f34a925
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96186
Bug ID: 96186
Summary: [11 regressoion] ICE: Unrecognizable insn since
r11-1970-fab263ab0fc10ea08409b80afa7e8569438b8d28
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96187
Bug ID: 96187
Summary: GCC at -O2 generates branch for code that should be
branch-free
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94393
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> There are two parts to fixing this PR.
> 1) We can do better in the sequences generated for some constants.
> 2) rs6000_rtx_costs needs to be accurate, so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96183
Bug ID: 96183
Summary: GCC accepts "convert '' from 'void'
to 'int'" at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:23:58PM +, amelvill at umich dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
>
> --- Comment #4 from AJM ---
> >> I won't comment on the questionable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96163
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4facd483de2d5b6b4d20e6ad74c85b9f1eba41a
commit r11-2062-gc4facd483de2d5b6b4d20e6ad74c85b9f1eba41a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 01:42:29PM +, amelvill at umich dot edu wrote:
>
> As far as workarounds go, if it came to that I'd rather just make a dummy
> "debug" function that stored these common variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
--- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The difference is that in C++11 the standard requires that the body of a
> constexpr function is return expression, that is not the case of C++14
> anymore.
> And,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or another possible wording would be that a constexpr function which is not a
valid constant expression for all possible parameter values is invalid.
I believe such wording is there for templates and instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96184
Bug ID: 96184
Summary: GCC treats "use of local variable with automatic
storage from containing function" differently in
versions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96185
--- Comment #1 from Will Wray ---
Clang ticket https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46704
MSVC ticket
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/idea/203/enhancement-please-add-a-builtin-to-count-bindings.html#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48869
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48869=edit
alternate patch
OK, I have another patch that reduces the overall number of visited blocks
in stage3 gcc/*.o by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Bug ID: 96188
Summary: -Wstringop-overflow false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So we could do something like:
--- gcc/cp/decl.c.jj2020-07-09 11:27:51.088908783 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/decl.c 2020-07-13 14:34:59.887259561 +0200
@@ -17164,7 +17164,9 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #17 from Ian McInerney ---
I think that r11-1899 is the more important one to backport, since that will
also allow for warnings that are generated by headers inside "-isystem" include
directories to not have the notes printed without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45337
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bae66e0f04323ba9d5daf60fcb997de925100e3e
commit r11-2065-gbae66e0f04323ba9d5daf60fcb997de925100e3e
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #4 from AJM ---
>> I won't comment on the questionable programming idiom of placing
>> a common block in a module, which kind of defeats the niceties of
>> a module.
> If somebody wants to transition your code from using common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30529e2faa482bc749c65a490763dbc2ccaf63ac
commit r10-8470-g30529e2faa482bc749c65a490763dbc2ccaf63ac
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed for GCC 10.2 and 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e4c9ebbab7bec3b5994f85aebce13bf37cf46e9
commit r10-8471-g5e4c9ebbab7bec3b5994f85aebce13bf37cf46e9
Author: Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96189
Bug ID: 96189
Summary: Failure to use eflags from cmpxchg on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to AJM from comment #8)
> If you really need to know, on the C side there is a struct with fields that
> match the order and size of the variables in the common statement / module
> declaration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95789
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 96179 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95151
Bug 95151 depends on bug 95443, which changed state.
Bug 95443 Summary: cmpstrnqi patterns update string length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95443
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95789
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/96179
template struct vector
{
void push_back(T) { }
};
struct dummy{
int a;
};
void Modify_Dummy(dummy ){
d.a=1;
}
template void Templated_Function(){
vector A;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95443
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9cba898481368ce16c6a2d30ef781a82dce27c55
commit r11-2068-g9cba898481368ce16c6a2d30ef781a82dce27c55
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jul 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #11 from AJM ---
Thanks for all your suggestions, they're very helpful!
>'-falign-commons'
> By default, 'gfortran' enforces **proper** alignment of all variables
> in a 'COMMON' block by padding them as needed...
I am not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95288
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:776e48e0931db69f158f40e5cb8e15463d879a42
commit r11-2066-g776e48e0931db69f158f40e5cb8e15463d879a42
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
