https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
Kaz Kylheku changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkylheku at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89735
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 45979
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45979=edit
moduleinfo alignment
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #2)
> Might add that there are quite a few unaligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89735
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Might add that there are quite a few unaligned accesses:
runnable.exe(15999): unaligned access to 0x001d080d at
ip=0x00100357
runnable.exe(15999): unaligned access to 0x0021f439
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89735
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
(gdb) p obj
$3 = {{{fieldA = 0 '\000', fieldB = 0 '\000', fieldC = 0 '\000'},
_complete = 2}}
(gdb) p
$4 = (runnable.S186 *) 0xf8d0268c
(gdb) x/x 0xf8d0268c
0xf8d0268c: 0x0002
Looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89735
Bug ID: 89735
Summary: FAIL: gdc.dg/runnable.d -O0 execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89734
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This doesn't need typeof. The following much simpler test demonstrates
this regression.
typedef const int CI;
CI f (void);
const int f (void);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39985
pskocik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pskocik at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89734
Bug ID: 89734
Summary: const qualifier on return type not erased inside
__typeof__
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Find the right hire
Should you wish not to receive any promotional email in the future, please
click UNSUBSCRIBE.如閣下不欲收到本公司的宣傳郵件，請按不訂閱。
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89729
--- Comment #3 from Xavier ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation, it's much clearer now.
Wclass-memaccess does look sane.
script_data_t is apparently manipulated from both C and C++ code, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #31 from John David Anglin ---
The patch didn't the fail on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 but the error has changed:
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/memory_resource/resource_a
daptor.cc:64: void test05(): Assertion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60091
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Fri Mar 15 22:20:20 2019
New Revision: 269717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269717=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-15 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/60091
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Mar 15 22:09:15 2019
New Revision: 269716
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269716=gcc=rev
Log:
LRA: side_effects_p stmts' output is not invariant (PR89721)
PR89721 shows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89732
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yup, that would explain the failure then. I'll make the changes to this test to
work with that patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hgreving at google dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |7.5
Summary|[8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|GCC crashing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef int __v8si __attribute__((__vector_size__(8 * sizeof (int;
void bar (int);
void
foo (void)
{
register __v8si b asm("ymm0");
for (int c = 0; c < 4; ++c)
bar (b[c]);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89732
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-03-15 4:50 p.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Have you applied the patch from Bug 77691 comment 30?
I have it installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89732
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #0)
> Revision 269442 was okay.
Are you sure? Neither the test nor the code it tests have changed since then.
Have you applied the patch from Bug 77691 comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
Bug ID: 89733
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] False positive -Wuninitialized in
C++14+ mode
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89705
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Another testcase with an lvalue reference:
struct W { operator const volatile int(); };
const int& i = W();
But I think all those testcases are invalid, because [dcl.init.ref] says: If T1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89729
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Xavier from comment #0)
> There are already many bugs about this one, but since I am not expert on
> C++, I would like to have your advice.
[...]
> What's the correct way in gnu++98 to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
--- Comment #2 from Hendrik Greving ---
Created attachment 45978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45978=edit
Pre-processed test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #16 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Fri Mar 15 19:52:43 2019
New Revision: 269715
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269715=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-03-15 Kelvin Nilsen
PR target/87532
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89732
Bug ID: 89732
Summary: FAIL:
experimental/memory_resource/new_delete_resource.cc
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89731
Bug ID: 89731
Summary: GCC crashing when mixing AVX inline asm with macros
and C.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89667
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, rick at regreer dot net wrote:
> But can you explain why:
>
> static char *foo[] = { (char []){"this compiles ..."} };
>
> void but() { static char *bar[] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87481
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45977
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45977=edit
gcc9-pr87481.patch
Updated patch based on mailing list and IRC feedback.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
Bug ID: 89730
Summary: -flive-patching=inline-only-static should grant
always_inline attribute for extern function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88724
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #2)
> On 2019-03-15 12:48 p.m., ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88724
> >
> > --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88724
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-03-15 12:48 p.m., ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88724
>
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> The system headers (stdlib.h,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88724
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
The system headers (stdlib.h, time.h, stdint.h, etc...) will need to be ported
to druntime, are these available anywhere?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89729
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89729
Bug ID: 89729
Summary: [g++ 8] -Wclass-memaccess warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89715
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89715
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> But the code above doesn't trigger either warning when compiled as C. I
> think that suggests that either the manual should be updated to explain the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45974
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45974=edit
gcc9-pr89726.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89728
Bug ID: 89728
Summary: ctype is underconstrained
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
> >
> > Xiong Hu XS Luo changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88534
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leppkes at stce dot
rwth-aachen.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89727
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88534
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 15 13:56:55 2019
New Revision: 269709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269709=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR88534] accept VAR_DECL in class literal template parms
P0732R2 / C++ 2a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88537
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 15 13:56:55 2019
New Revision: 269709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269709=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR88534] accept VAR_DECL in class literal template parms
P0732R2 / C++ 2a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89727
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, and it's a dup of an existing bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88990
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89707
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88990
--- Comment #2 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Fri Mar 15 13:37:07 2019
New Revision: 269708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269708=gcc=rev
Log:
PR d/88990
d/dmd: Merge upstream dmd 8d4c876c6
The extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe the ix86_expand_floorceildf_32 changes of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg01611.html
meant to fix this, but it isn't clear why it actually didn't fail the test.
Certainly I don't see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45973
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45973=edit
patch I am testing
I am testing the following. I needed to adjust the testcase a bit to make
the C++ FE happy, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89650
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
433.milc 9180336 27.4 *9180349 26.3 S
433.milc 9180335 27.4 S9180340 27.0 *
433.milc 9180344 26.7 S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89727
--- Comment #2 from Klaus Leppkes ---
So from Richard Biener's post
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89727#c1), it looks like
_ZTWN1B1aE
[
$>c++filt "_ZTWN1B1aE"
TLS wrapper function for B::a
]
is the correct accessor (which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
--- Comment #3 from Xan Lopez ---
FWIW, the previous testcase I was using, which is a bit more convoluted, is
this one:
#include
#include
double mathCeil(double n)
{
return ceil(n);
}
int main()
{
double a = -0.9;
double result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
--- Comment #2 from Xan Lopez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This is just incorrect expectations.
> "The signbit macro returns a nonzero value if and only if the sign of its
> argument value is negative."
> says the standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
--- Comment #9 from Xavier ---
We are compiling with -std=gnu++98 so decltype is not available there.
And the "+ 0" trick does not seem to work correctly.
% cat toto.c
#include
int main(void) {
char data[128];
printf("%ju\n",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> But the code above doesn't trigger either warning when compiled as C.
Because I only added it for C++, see r248432 and PR 80544.
I don't think I considered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
So I tested this with a one-off run of SPEC CPU 2006 on a Haswell machine
which shows the expected improvement on 416.gamess but also eventual
regressions for 433.milc (340s -> 343s), 450.soplex (223s ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89727
Bug ID: 89727
Summary: static thread_local ODR use broken
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89726
Bug ID: 89726
Summary: Incorrect inlined version of 'ceil' for 32bit
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 15 11:07:53 2019
New Revision: 269704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269704=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 15 11:07:53 2019
New Revision: 269704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269704=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89724
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45971=edit
gcc9-pr89724.patch
Patch so far tested just with make check-gfortran but not whole
bootstrap/regtest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #17 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> Andrey: Can you please send a patch for it into gcc-patches mailing list?
Sure, I've sent the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89667
--- Comment #3 from Rick Greer ---
Thanks guys, the compound literal works for me.
But can you explain why:
static char *foo[] = { (char []){"this compiles ..."} };
void but() { static char *bar[] = { (char []){"this doesn't!"} }; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89719
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I see. Do you prefer a langhook solution that would "fix" this only
> for C/C++ and LTO then?
That sounds like the best approach to me, but I'm no expert here.
> OK, I see. VRP still expects it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89719
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 15 09:50:11 2019
New Revision: 269703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269703=gcc=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/89719 Adjust gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck*.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
>
> --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Btw, I tried to use TREE_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89709
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 15 09:23:11 2019
New Revision: 269702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269702=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89709
* tree.c (inchash::add_expr): Strip any location
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Btw, I tried to use TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE ()) of the ENUMERAL_TYPE but
> that breaks with Ada (bah, no libbacktrace support there...):
Probably because of:
/* Note that the bounds are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 89717 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
>
> Xiong Hu XS Luo changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89724
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is actually not much related to the -fpre-include stuff, but is a general
bug in the continuation handling.
If I do:
!
!
!
include 'continuation_9.f90'
then it will show:
f951: Warning: ‘&’ not allowed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89712
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89712
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Mar 15 08:36:15 2019
New Revision: 269701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269701=gcc=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r269684
2019-03-15 Martin Liska
PR other/89712
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
