https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
>
> --- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
> This is weird. If I remove empty lines, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
>
> --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83853
--- Comment #4 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to rene.rahn from comment #2)
> > It basically says, that while T2 is currently destroying the condition
> > variable, T1 is still accessing i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83826
--- Comment #2 from coypu ---
Created attachment 43145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43145&action=edit
fixed sys/types.h
--- Comment #3 from coypu ---
Created attachment 43146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83826
--- Comment #2 from coypu ---
Created attachment 43145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43145&action=edit
fixed sys/types.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
Joshua Kinard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.1.0 |7.2.0
Version|7.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
Joshua Kinard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.1.0 |7.2.0
Version|7.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83462
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83880
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83771
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it anymore on the current trunk (r256677).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83887
Bug ID: 83887
Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in verify_dominators, at
dominance.c:1184 (error: dominator of 3 should be 21,
not 18)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83588
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|[6/7/8 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83588
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 16 03:02:34 2018
New Revision: 256721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83588 - struct with two flexible arrays causes an internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83886
Bug ID: 83886
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch, at cfgrtl.c:4433
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83885
Bug ID: 83885
Summary: FAIL: gnat.dg/trampoline3.adb scan-assembler-not
GNU-stack.*x
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83884
Bug ID: 83884
Summary: FAIL: gnat.dg/check_displace_generation.adb (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83883
Bug ID: 83883
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-26.c
scan-tree-dump-times dse1 "Deleted dead store" 2
(found 4 times)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #1 from Kaushikp ---
Just some additional info on this issue,
The powerpc-elf-gcc did not have any issues compiling this testcase with
identical options on gcc-7.2.0;
powerpc-linux-gcc generated segmentation fault;
powerpc64-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83882
Bug ID: 83882
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr81715.C -std=gnu++98 (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83881
Bug ID: 83881
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c -std=gnu++98 (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83880
Bug ID: 83880
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-4.c -std=gnu++98
(test for warnings, line 67)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82257
lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82257
--- Comment #2 from lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: lkrupp
Date: Tue Jan 16 01:09:11 2018
New Revision: 256720
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-15 Louis Krupp
PR fortran/82257
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One more thing, this only happens on LE and only if the compiler is built
--with-cpu=power8 or --with-cpu=power9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code below is were the assertion is failing (the line after // WDS test).
I was experimenting a bit and commented out the assertion so I could see what
it was guarding and ... nothing happened
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879
Bug ID: 83879
Summary: __gcov_dump doesn't work with dlopen-ed libraries
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83838
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
> > --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
> > There are
> >
> > /* Only recent versions of Solaris 11 ld properly support hidden
> > .gnu.linkonce
> >sect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83864
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83878
Bug ID: 83878
Summary: Line hit counts are sometimes wrong
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83877
Bug ID: 83877
Summary: Make gcov accept a path to the gcda and a path to the
gcno file
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83876
Bug ID: 83876
Summary: [feature request] flag to force vague linkage for
typeinfo and/or disable vtable anchoring
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I had a brief interchange with Segher to see if he was still working on this
(no). He had this to say (paraphrased with permission):
[There are two proposed ways to make this better:
1) Propagate things
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83837
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83629
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80481
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5)
> Created attachment 43121 [details]
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 -m64 assembler output
Thank you for the code. The patch solves the problem for solaris too.
Unfortuna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
Bug ID: 83875
Summary: [feature request] target_clones compatible SIMD
capability/length check
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83629
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jan 15 22:08:12 2018
New Revision: 256711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-01-10 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83837
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 15 21:47:11 2018
New Revision: 256710
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256710&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83837
* omp-expand.c (expand_omp_atomic_pipe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83869
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jan 15 21:45:06 2018
New Revision: 256709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/83869 - c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-3.c fails starting with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83869
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jan 15 21:45:06 2018
New Revision: 256709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/83869 - c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-3.c fails starting with
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83839
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Created attachment 43124 [details]
> Try this patch
My computer only finished bootstrapping with this version of the patch now, but
it worked. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83869
Bug 83869 depends on bug 82609, which changed state.
Bug 82609 Summary: missing -Warrray-bounds on an argument in parentheses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 82609, which changed state.
Bug 82609 Summary: missing -Warrray-bounds on an argument in parentheses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83869
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf ---
1719 else if (init->expr_type == EXPR_ARRAY)
1720{
1721 if (init->ts.u.cl)
1722{
1723
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
Bug ID: 83874
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE initializing character array
from derived type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #13)
> Now, for the G77 intrinsics, we don't need to follow the standard and can do
> whatever we want. Though I think the general approach above is good for G77
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #15 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #13)
> Now, for the G77 intrinsics, we don't need to follow the standard and can do
> whatever we want. Though I think the general approach above is good for G77
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83869
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83837
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 43138
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43138&action=edit
> gcc8-pr83837.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83830
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83833
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83833
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 15 19:58:22 2018
New Revision: 256708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83833 fix chi_squared_distribution::param(const param&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> It looks like the std::c[a-z] pattern only matches one symbol anyway:
Typo, I meant std::c[a-g]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes,'void f (int[static 2])' does mean that and I had hoped to be able to rely
on it. Unfortunately, the VLA specification suffers from a number of
limitations that made it impractical. Some of them are disc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like the std::c[a-z] pattern only matches one symbol anyway:
"std::cerr"
This should fix it:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
@@ -58,9 +58,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no "correct" answer, the exact form of the demangled string is somewhat
arbitrary, especially for lambdas as there is no way to say that name in C++.
The libstdc++ linker script clearly expected th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83873
Bug ID: 83873
Summary: adjacent digit separators are accepted in the
exponent-part of floating-point literals
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83837
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83872
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This is the typical case of value range info being more precise during vrp
> pass (where we have ASSERT_EXPRs) rather than elsewhere (where we don't have
> them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83857
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Slightly reduced testcase:
f (double *x, double y)
{
double a = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
{
a += y;
x[i * 2] += a;
x[i * 2 + 1] += a;
}
return a - y;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83872
Bug ID: 83872
Summary: [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/pointer1.f90 and
libgomp.fortran/pointer2.f90 ICE starting with r256606
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 15, 2018 5:34:58 PM GMT+01:00, aurelien at aurel32 dot net
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
>
>--- Comment #8 from Aurelien Jarno ---
>(In reply to Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does the kernel boot now with the latest trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse ---
Looking at the very first testcase in this PR, assuming 16-bit int, 129*255
overflows and is thus undefined behavior. Multiply by 255u if you want the
multiplication to happen safely in an unsigned type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||83871
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #17)
> Obervation that -fno-wrapv also leads to correct code, hence there is
> somewhere a wrong assumption that signed overflow occurs (which doesn't).
(you probabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871
Bug ID: 83871
Summary: wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct
template specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83870
Bug ID: 83870
Summary: template parameter pack followed by another template
parameter does not error when following parameter can
not be deduced
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83740
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jan 15 18:35:13 2018
New Revision: 256705
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256705&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/54613
* gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83857
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83869
Bug ID: 83869
Summary: [8 regression] c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-3.c fails
starting with r256683
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83857
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -Ofast:
template struct C {
typedef int D[N];
static int &foo (D x, int y) { return x[y]; }
};
template struct A {
typedef C H;
typename H::D k;
int &operator[](long x) { ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83868
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83868
Bug ID: 83868
Summary: i386: Clean up thunk function generation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83839
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83839
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 15 18:16:01 2018
New Revision: 256704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256704&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Don't use ASM_OUTPUT_DEF for TARGET_MACHO
ASM_OUTPUT_DEF isn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 1) How to annotate constant size buffers. I'd like to be able to express that
> a function requires a buffer of at least N elements w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
--- Comment #8 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ok it's because of 'void f()' vs 'f()'
old:
8133 cxx_sym = bfd_demangle (link_info.output_bfd, sym,
Value returned is $2 = 0x2695a00 "void std::call_once >(std::once_flag&, void
(std::threa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83839
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 43124 [details]
> Try this patch
Works for me. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83867
Bug ID: 83867
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in
nested_in_vect_loop_p
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83861
--- Comment #2 from Albert Chan ---
hello Andrew,
can you explain what is libc ?
is it part of gcc ?
where should this sscanf bug be sent ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83817
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43141&action=edit
gcc8-pr83817.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83817
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83857
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83836
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83866
Bug ID: 83866
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_release_symbol, at
fortran/symbol.c:3087
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
This is weird. If I remove empty lines, or rename the paths in the # line
markers in the .ii file, the error sometimes disappears...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
A similar pair : ICE with 7/8 for z4.f90, z5.f90 works.
$ cat z4.f90
program p
associate (x => f())
if ( x(1) /= '' ) call abort
end associate
contains
function f() result(z)
character(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
Bug ID: 83865
Summary: ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1567
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
