https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
Or, alternatively, from the top-level build directory where you have copied the
gnat.dg/lto8* files, just: gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -S lto8.adb -flto -I gcc/ada/rts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
Andrius Burokas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andriusspamtest at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I am not sure how to get command line for debugger but I assume that it does
> not simplify type name because type_with_linkage_p returns true which is
> wrong for Ada types (it tests whether it is C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #10)
> Hi,
>
> FYI, I bisected this revision r265463 to introduce a regression when
> building the llvm toolchain.
>
> If you do the following:
> - build gcc 9 >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88711
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88521
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jan 7 07:31:19 2019
New Revision: 267622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267622=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/88521
* config/i386/i386.c (function_value_ms_64): Return small
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88717
--- Comment #1 from 刘袋鼠 ---
Pass_insert_vzeroupper uses mode_switch to insert `vzeroupper`.
In function entry and functon body, 256bits/512bits registers are used ,so it
will set mode as `AVX_U128_DIRTY`. But for function exit no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
DirkInSA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://raghunathlolur.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/combined-tree-build-of-gcc-binutils-and-libraries/
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1726042/recipe-for-compiling-binutils-gcc-together
etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #4 from DirkInSA ---
Symlink was a simply the whole binutils source directory into gcc source
directory.
I was not aware that each of bfd, binutils, config, cpu & etc needed to be
linked (I assume) into the base gcc directory - will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88732
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Amos Wang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > Why not read the documentation for that function?
> > "If x is 0, the result is undefined."
>
> Why the results are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88732
--- Comment #2 from Amos Wang ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Why not read the documentation for that function?
> "If x is 0, the result is undefined."
Why the results are different at different optimizing optionss? If it's an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88732
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Why not read the documentation for that function?
"If x is 0, the result is undefined."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88732
Bug ID: 88732
Summary: different results on -O0 and -O1, -O2, -O3, -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the full log? And also attach config.log in the top level
directory?
> Actually binutils-2.29 ... are symlinked into the gcc source tree.
How did you do the symlink here? Is it a symlink
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #2 from tomsies at mighty dot co.za ---
Actually binutils-2.29 (along with gmp-6.1.0, mpc-1.0.3 and mpfr-3.1.4) are
symlinked into the gcc source tree. So they should be built as part of the
compile.
My assumption is that the as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
--- Comment #4 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
Did some testing. Previously pretty much everything I tried failed.
I don't have mcf, but git, less, gcc LTO+autofdo bootstrap all appear to work
now.
So it's likely fixed.
Would be good if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88731
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is a TC rather than a DR which means it is not part of C11 but the next one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #14 from Chris Elrod ---
It's not really reproducible across runs:
$ time ./gfortvectests
Transpose benchmark completed in 22.7010765
SIMD benchmark completed in 1.37529969
All are equal: F
All are approximately
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88731
Bug ID: 88731
Summary: Rejects well-formed program using bit-fields in
_Generic.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88730
--- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang ---
It appears to be a regression in 8.X.
ix
gcc version 9.0.0 20190106 (experimental) [trunk revision 267609] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c outer.c
$ gdb-trunk -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x400507: file abc.c, line 11.
0
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:11
11optimize_me_not();
$1 = 5
$ gcc-trunk -g -Og abc.c outer.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #12 from Chris Elrod ---
Created attachment 45363
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45363=edit
Fortran program for running benchmarks.
Okay, thank you.
I attached a Fortran program you can run to benchmark the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88728
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 45362
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45362=edit
config.status
And here is the config.log.
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88729 , which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88729
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88728
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 45361
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45361=edit
config log
Here's the config.log from the configure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88728
Bug ID: 88728
Summary: Boostrap with -Og fails with garbled file
libgcov-profiler.i
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88729
Bug ID: 88729
Summary: ICE in libiberty during bootstrap with debug info
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 88713, which changed state.
Bug 88713 Summary: Vectorized code slow vs. flang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86747
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This patch also fixed PR 87651 and PR 87652 which are also regressions on
gcc-8-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87651
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88716
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87652
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79624
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.2.0 |4.9.2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86756
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86756
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 6 22:34:29 2019
New Revision: 267615
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267615=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86756 add std::filesystem::path to libstdc++.so
Move the C++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86756
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 6 22:34:37 2019
New Revision: 267616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267616=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86756 Move rest of std::filesystem to libstdc++.so
Move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68423
Ryan R Haining changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Ryan R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68423
Ryan R Haining changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79624
--- Comment #4 from Ryan R Haining ---
still a problem on head: https://wandbox.org/permlink/tPYbCp1jWYmc9O9J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Ryan R Haining changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87652
Ryan R Haining changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87651
Ryan R Haining changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88727
Bug ID: 88727
Summary: Diagnostics improvement: Detection of undefined
behaviour. Incomplete type in tenative definition with
internal linkage.
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 6 20:52:34 2019
New Revision: 267614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267614=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87431 fix regression introduced by r264574
The previous patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45359=edit
gcc9-pr88723.patch
Actually, UNSPEC_MOVE_GOTDATA always has non-constant arguments, such UNSPECs
we would never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88130
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88130
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 6 20:11:15 2019
New Revision: 267613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267613=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2019-01-02 Jan Hubicka
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #10 from Chris Elrod ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> Hm.
>
> It would help if your benchmark was complete, so I could run it.
>
I don't suppose you happen to have and be familiar with Julia? If you (or
someone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80354
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colomar.6.4.3 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hm.
It would help if your benchmark was complete, so I could run it.
However, what happens if you put int
real, dimension(:) :: Uix
real, dimension(:), intent(in) :: x
real,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #8 from Chris Elrod ---
Created attachment 45358
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45358=edit
gfortran compiled assembly for the tranposed version of the original code.
Here is the assembly for the loop body of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88726
Bug ID: 88726
Summary: GCC thinks that translation unit does not contain a
definition of inline function.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88725
Bug ID: 88725
Summary: fails to deduce template specialization in friend
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #7 from Chris Elrod ---
Created attachment 45357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45357=edit
Assembly generated by Flang compiler on the original version of the code.
This is the main loop body in the Flang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #6 from Chris Elrod ---
Created attachment 45356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45356=edit
Code to demonstrate that transposing makes things slower.
Thomas Koenig, I am well aware that Fortran is column major.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 45355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45355=edit
preprocessed input
Sure. The cc1plus invocation is
cc1plus -fpreprocessed testsuite_shared.ii -quiet -dumpbase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't have access to Solaris, can you attach preprocessed testsuite_shared.cc
+ the g++ options used to compile it?
The note generally shouldn't break stuff, it isn't an error, just a debugging
hint (goes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88724
Bug ID: 88724
Summary: FAIL: gdc.dg/compilable.d -O0 (test for excess
errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723
Bug ID: 88723
Summary: [9 regression] PR debug/88635 patch breaks
testsuite_shared.cc compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88722
Bug ID: 88722
Summary: :1: internal compiler error: in
register_moduleinfo, at d/modules.cc:40 2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I spent good part of day today trying to recollect what was motivation for the
change. All i can think of is that it was mistaken micro-optimization as
mentioned in the mail I sent about reverting the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 6 17:16:00 2019
New Revision: 267612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267612=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-opt/86020
Revert:
2017-05-22 Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 45354
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45354=edit
Possible patch
This patch allowed the bootstrap to finish.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721
Bug ID: 88721
Summary: [9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings in
sparc.c
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Testsuite ICEs with -flto |[9 Regression] Testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> A related test case, also changed between 20180909 and 20180916 :
Confirmed at r264350, not fixed by the patch in comment 2, but by the patch in
comment 3.
Janus, could please you figure out why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
I get only 2 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
Bug ID: 88720
Summary: Strange error message about nested function declared
but not defined when using inline.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86517
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 6 15:51:45 2019
New Revision: 267610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267610=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/86517
PR lto/88185
* lto-opts.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 6 15:51:45 2019
New Revision: 267610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267610=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/86517
PR lto/88185
* lto-opts.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88719
Bug ID: 88719
Summary: [9 Regression] wrong code at -O2, -O3, and -Os on
x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88694
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88718
Bug ID: 88718
Summary: Strange inconsistency between old style and new style
declarations of iinline functions.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88717
Bug ID: 88717
Summary: Unnecessary vzeroupper
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88606
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: verify_type failed |[9 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88606
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 88713, which changed state.
Bug 88713 Summary: _gfortran_internal_pack@PLT prevents vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|infinite loop generated for |[7/8/9 Regression] infinite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85433
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Warnings from comment #8 are fixed now. I would love to know if there are any
issues with what GCC 9 outputs. We still can't track locations to the original
.o files though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88584
--- Comment #7 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #6)
> This looks like a case that was missed in, or broken by, my fix for bug
> 13801, which was supposed to address such cases of entities with different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88658
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88658
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jan 6 12:48:58 2019
New Revision: 267609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267609=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-06 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88658
* gfortran.h: Add
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
