https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87399
Bug ID: 87399
Summary: Inconsistent determination of what is usable in a
constant expression with __PRETTY_FUNCTION__
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80078
Christopher Head changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.2.0
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk by r262199; still affects gcc-8 and gcc-7 branches.
so what should be the target milestone then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83656
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01645.html
So according to that discussion, it stalled due to producing a bunch of
warnings in autoconf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77865
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Duplicate of/ related to pr71906?
Well related to at least...
(...why does this need to be in WAITING?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45927
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60890
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82272
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> I submitted N2229 to WG14:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2229.htm
>
> I also opened Glibc bug for isdigit() et al. referenced in the paper:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70230
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50480
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #6)
> Created attachment 27206 [details]
> ivtops dump from subversion id 183934 (after regression)
Where are we supposed to be looking in this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65253
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brobecker at gnat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64339
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79592
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
--- Comment #4 from Walter Spector ---
Hi Paul,
I built an updated compiler that includes your fix. The ICE is gone - thanks!
However the assignment is still not correctly compiled.
The example should be reallocating the character string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #7)
> Bazinga! And now I might a number error again PR87259 -> PR87359.
There have been occasions where I thought that having a checksum
on PR numbers might have
/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180923 (experimental) [trunk revision 264513] (GCC)
$ g++-trunk -std=c++2a abc.C
abc.C: In function ‘void c()’:
abc.C:7:20: internal compiler error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0)
> > I was trying to debug PR 87395 a bit, and found that there was
> > an ICE now instead...
> >
> > This is with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87397
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 23 20:17:25 2018
New Revision: 264518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264518=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-23 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/87397
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87397
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 23 20:17:25 2018
New Revision: 264518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264518=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-23 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/87397
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > it's been broken a long time - even apple-gcc-4.2.1 is broken
>
> actually, that's not true; it puts the symbol in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87397
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87337
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87397
Bug ID: 87397
Summary: Clobbering intent(out) variables caused regression in
OpenCoarrays testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87394
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> May I include the change in changes I'm planning to test
> and submit to mailing list?
Indeed!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87394
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > Problematic code snippet: ...
>
> This looks like a false positive: the code snippet is accessed in an IF block
>
> if (case1 || case2)
>
> hence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87387
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78417
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It now says
78417-1.c:10:15: error: target_clones attribute needs GLIBC (2.23 and newer)
that exports hardware capability bits
static double foo_int(const double *restrict a, const double *restrict b,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87390
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87396
Bug ID: 87396
Summary: gcc/ada/gcc-interface/decl.c:8798:53:Value Conversion
Issue: implicit conversion from 'int' to 'char'
changes value from 132 to -124: -Wconstant-conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #33 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 44739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44739=edit
Reproducer for the ICE.
Paul, here is a first (still massive) reproducer of the second problem. Though
it is still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> it's been broken a long time - even apple-gcc-4.2.1 is broken
actually, that's not true; it puts the symbol in common to merge this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 67883, which changed state.
Bug 67883 Summary: ICE on empty array constructor of character function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67883
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67883
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67883
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #2)
> Another group of examples.
> First case is working in a sufficient manner.
> Concatenating two empty hulls (zero len and size, respectivly)
> gives an empty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67883
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #0)
> With an effectively empty (i=m,n and m>n) array constructor :
>
>
> $ cat z1.f90
> program p
>integer i
>print *, [(f(i), i=2,1)]
> contains
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65677
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 44738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44738=edit
A fix for the PR
I have no idea at all why I didn't manage to fix this previously. It is almost
obvious.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77314
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41453
Bug 41453 depends on bug 87395, which changed state.
Bug 87395 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in in lookup_field_for_decl with whizard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 23 10:52:27 2018
New Revision: 264512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264512=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-23 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/87395
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87387
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Looks like an old implementation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02390.html
It might be worth using this as a starting point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87387
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
I found this bug by compiling gcc with the new clang 7.0
It seems that gcc can't be encouraged to warn about self-assignment.
For example:
$cat sep23a.cc
// -Wself-assign. clang has it. gcc doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87395
Bug ID: 87395
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in in lookup_field_for_decl with
whizard
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
it's been broken a long time - even apple-gcc-4.2.1 is broken, I don't have
3.3 anywhere without booting an old machine.
clang produces:
.section__DATA,__data
.globl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
Eugeniu Rosca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
--- Comment #2 from Eugeniu Rosca ---
Hi Andrew,
> As an extension to the C language, GCC does not use the latitude given in C99
> and C11 only to treat certain aspects of signed ‘<<’ as undefined. However,
> -fsanitize=shift (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87394
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78417
Efraim changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||efraim at flashner dot co.il
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86012
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Sun Sep 23 08:36:14 2018
New Revision: 264511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264511=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-09-23 Matthias Klose
Backported from the gcc-7-branch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87394
Bug ID: 87394
Summary: gcc/fortran/decl.c:6466:16:Semantic Issue: variable
'stree' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition
is false: -Wsometimes-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87393
Bug ID: 87393
Summary: [8/9 Regression] gcc/cp/parser.c:13967:37:Unused
Entity Issue: expression result unused: -Wunused-value
since r251026
Product: gcc
58 matches
Mail list logo
