https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90952
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg02751.html shows that
> 521.wrf_r is no longer failing.
>
> Closing as fixed.
Yes, thank you.
By the way,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91544
Bug ID: 91544
Summary: When initializing allocatable character array get
"Error: size of variable 'A.0' is too large"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #18 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17)
> Simply passing on a huge number of arguments is not enough to trigger this.
>
> Here's a perl script to generate test cases:
>
> while ($n=shift)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37073
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
Bug ID: 91543
Summary: Handling stack overflow more sensibly
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91533
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91533
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Aug 25 19:51:45 2019
New Revision: 274914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274914=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91533
Backport from mainline
2019-06-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
fixed for 8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Aug 25 19:31:47 2019
New Revision: 274913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274913=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, fixincludes] Backport fix for PR83531
There is no reasonable chance that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Aug 25 19:27:04 2019
New Revision: 274912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274912=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, Driver] Fix driver crashes with valid command line input.
Backport Improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
The problem with the test case is that both sum and count
are transformational functions, i.e. they reduce the
rank.
So, ideally this would be translated into
real sum = 0.;
int count = 0;
for (i=0; i 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91533
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Aug 25 18:24:01 2019
New Revision: 274911
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274911=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91533
Backport from mainline
2019-06-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91533
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Aug 25 18:21:04 2019
New Revision: 274910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274910=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91533
Backport from mainline
2019-06-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91542
--- Comment #1 from ldrumm at rtps dot co ---
Sorry. I clicked submit too soon.
Interestingly if the index operation is a constant (but not a constant
expression), the error message is correct
```
struct Node {
int n_successors;
};
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91542
Bug ID: 91542
Summary: internal representation of pointer reference shown in
error message
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
Allocator-extended constructors with explicit exception specifications may also
have the value_type/node mismatch problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
Bug ID: 91541
Summary: [C++17] Exception specification of operator= of
node-based containers may be broken
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #29 from Yichao Yu ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412#c25
GCC is fully capable of aligning the stack. It just seems that different part
of it disagrees on what the current stack alignment is and whether a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
John Platts changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john_platts at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
23 matches
Mail list logo
