https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 92695, which changed state.
Bug 92695 Summary: P1064R0 - virtual constexpr fails if object taken from array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
Bug ID: 95523
Summary: aarch64:ICE in register_tuple_type，at
config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:3434
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #12 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Since there would be many options, we could use a bitflags parameter instead of
having multiple parameters for the options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #11 from programmerjake at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to programmerjake from comment #10)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #9)
> > Does gcc provide a way to specify whether the stack should be aligned
> > properly, or is it done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
programmerjake at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||programmerjake at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #31 from Andrew Downing ---
What would you say is the solution here? There's a disconnect between what the
c++ standard says should work, and what actually works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95521
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>libgccjit.so: error: in build2, at tree.c:4743
This means the PLUS_EXPR is being used when adding a pointer and an integer
together. It needs to be POINTER_PLUS_EXPR.
This does not mean the bug is not in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95384
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Or with less templates:
struct A {
A() = default;
union S {
constexpr S() noexcept : e() { }
struct {} e;
int i;
} s;
bool b = false;
};
struct B : A {
B() = default;
using A::A;
};
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95522
Bug ID: 95522
Summary: error: builtin "__builtin_choose_expr" not found
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95520
Bug ID: 95520
Summary: [coroutines] __builtin_FUNCTION() returns mangled
.actor instead of original function name
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95521
Bug ID: 95521
Summary: libgccjit.so: error: in build2, at tree.c:4743
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #9 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Ok, so you would go without a function-like API.
I think you're missing a few parameters here, like the ASM dialect (intel vs
ATT) unless that would be the string ".intel_syntax;" at the start of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379
--- Comment #16 from Asher Gordon ---
I just submitted a patch here[1] to fix this bug. Note that I did not implement
-Wno-universal-initializer, I just made it behave like that by default.
However, it should be fairly easy to implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Reading the docs for extended asm, I think the API entrypoint would need to
look something like:
extern void
gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79961
--- Comment #15 from Pedro Alves ---
Darn typos. Should be obvious that I meant:
Make it possible to write:
void foo (int, const char *arg) __attribute__ ((__nonnull__ (arg)));
instead of this when foo is a class method:
void foo (int,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79961
--- Comment #14 from Pedro Alves ---
I had forgotten about this bug, and when I re-read it, the idea of letting
the user refer to the parameter by name crossed my mind.
Like, make it possible to write:
void foo (int, const char *arg)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #4)
> > So, an example like this:
> >
> > ```c
> > bool old;
> > __asm__ ("btsl %2,%1\n\t" // Turn on zero-based bit #Offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
Bug ID: 95519
Summary: [coroutines] non-functions for
promise_type::return_void not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #6 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #4)
> > So, an example like this:
> >
> > ```c
> > bool old;
> > __asm__ ("btsl %2,%1\n\t" // Turn on zero-based bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #4)
> So, an example like this:
>
> ```c
> bool old;
> __asm__ ("btsl %2,%1\n\t" // Turn on zero-based bit #Offset in Base.
> "sbb %0,%0" // Use the CF to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #4 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Oh, maybe it wasn't clear, but what I meant by constraints is: the output
operands, the input operands, and clobbers.
I guess we could make multiple parameters in the function for those.
For the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95518
--- Comment #1 from Michael Bruck ---
This bug probably applies to all attributes. Of the more plausible ones I
tested [[gnu::section("")]] which also fails to propagate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
>
> --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95518
Bug ID: 95518
Summary: [coroutines] [[maybe_unused]] does not propagate to
actor() and destroy()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95517
Bug ID: 95517
Summary: [coroutines] suggested warning when co_return and
return_void() are missing
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95347
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aaron Sawdey :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0d738a0f493a85f46d7618efe20a89bf7f7ead8
commit r11-886-gc0d738a0f493a85f46d7618efe20a89bf7f7ead8
Author: Aaron Sawdey
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
Bug ID: 95516
Summary: [coroutines] incorrect warning "'coro.gro' is used
uninitialized"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aee69073cdb8086d393f12474c6177e75467ceaa
commit r11-884-gaee69073cdb8086d393f12474c6177e75467ceaa
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is of course only valid because signed overflow is undefined; it
wouldn't be a valid optimization with -fwrapv (unless x were narrower than
int so no overflow could occur).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 29 May 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Could there be overflows which don't happen originally?
Yes. Say a == INT_MIN, x == -1, b == 0, for example. (This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79961
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |7.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 80936, which changed state.
Bug 80936 Summary: bcmp, bcopy, and bzero not declared nonnull
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95515
Bug ID: 95515
Summary: missing --Wnonnull on a straightforward call with a
null pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95514
--- Comment #1 from Paul Keir ---
The code above should also include:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
static_assert(test1());
// test1(); // no problem
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95514
Bug ID: 95514
Summary: constexpr dynamic memory allocation compile error with
inheritance and the this pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78917
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95513
Bug ID: 95513
Summary: Bad warning about control reaches end of function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
Bug ID: 95512
Summary: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check
after use
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95175
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95345
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf7eac5805e714c7e71b699329e2c4f4a88addc1
commit r11-882-gcf7eac5805e714c7e71b699329e2c4f4a88addc1
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
--- Comment #9 from Joakim Tjernlund ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> It does not happen on any target currently, and it has never happened
> on non-SPE targets before.
The main user, u-boot, added the workaround with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95511
--- Comment #1 from Olivier Kannengieser ---
Actualy it is a bug that happens during the selection of the best viable
function:
template
void
func (auto...);
void
func (auto...);
void g(){
func (10); // this should not compile
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95504
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[PDT] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.4.1, 8.3.1
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95511
Bug ID: 95511
Summary: Class template argument deduction: guide generated
from constructor preferred over deduction-guide.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95510
Bug ID: 95510
Summary: [coroutines] ICE with consteval operator co_await
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
Bug ID: 95509
Summary: [11 regression] gfortran.dg/spellcheck-operator.f90
fails after r11-875
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95232
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95232
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef4e0c35546ba2c897613925c1d2485603ca3ab1
commit r11-880-gef4e0c35546ba2c897613925c1d2485603ca3ab1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89559
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67938
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95214
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66833
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66833
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d57c30611b05a89fd265f6c0a74fe829c21cd34
commit r11-879-g8d57c30611b05a89fd265f6c0a74fe829c21cd34
Author: José Rui Faustino de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95214
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d57c30611b05a89fd265f6c0a74fe829c21cd34
commit r11-879-g8d57c30611b05a89fd265f6c0a74fe829c21cd34
Author: José Rui Faustino de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67938
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d57c30611b05a89fd265f6c0a74fe829c21cd34
commit r11-879-g8d57c30611b05a89fd265f6c0a74fe829c21cd34
Author: José Rui Faustino de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94986
--- Comment #5 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Nick Desaulniers from comment #4)
> (In reply to nsz from comment #2)
> > ideally r7 clobber would just work with -pg -fomit-frame-pointer.
> > the alloca problem is a separate issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> The instrumentation added by the sanitizers is known to lead to introducing
> invalid code (typically by jump threading) that triggers spurious warnings.
I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94986
--- Comment #4 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #2)
> on arm the -pg abi is
>
> func:
> push {lr}
> bl _gnu_mcount_nc
> ...
>
> so no frame pointer is involved, -pg implying
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95501
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94986
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:887c45fb5b047171e82710baa51108d5c210eb42
commit r11-878-g887c45fb5b047171e82710baa51108d5c210eb42
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95502
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94986
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
Bug ID: 95508
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE on unexpected expression
implicit_conv_expr since r10-7096
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug ID: 95507
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wnonnull
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94986
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95499
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95506
Bug ID: 95506
Summary: [OpenMP] omp target – private clause and allocatables
– unallocated or reallocation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #14)
> I think it's invalid to refer to element (size_t)-1 of an array; that the
> actual integer value used has to be within the range of available array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Ah, yes, -Wpedantic does detect the invalid conversion. But few projects use
-Wpedantic (GCC itself doesn't) and enabling the warning in -Wall or -Wextra
would likely lead to lots of noise for code that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think it's invalid to refer to element (size_t)-1 of an array; that the
actual integer value used has to be within the range of available array
elements.
It's entirely possible that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 95490, which changed state.
Bug 95490 Summary: [10/11 Regression] writing 1 byte into a region of size 0
[-Wstringop-overflow=] since r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a89b3cbadbf485a77c8fd8fce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 95490 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95505
Bug ID: 95505
Summary: [coroutines] ICE assert with
get_return_object_on_allocation_failure
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85741
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
The reason we fail to compile the testcase when 'condition' is at class scope
instead of at namespace scope is because in the former case, the template
argument 'c::condition' is a CALL_EXPR to a BASELINK,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95504
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95504
Bug ID: 95504
Summary: ICE in transfer_array_component, at
fortran/trans-io.c:2167
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
Bug ID: 95503
Summary: ICE in gfc_is_simply_contiguous, at
fortran/expr.c:5844
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95499
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Test case need the change (in line 40) to compile - sorry.
@@ -40 +40 @@
-if (any (array /= [(-2*i, i = 1, nn)])) error stop 2
+if (any (array /= [(-2*i, i = 1, 10)])) error stop 2
Shorter test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95502
Bug ID: 95502
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_do_variable, at fortran/parse.c:4446
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95501
Bug ID: 95501
Summary: ICE in gfc_match_pointer_assignment, at
fortran/match.c:1422
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #5 from G.
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
