https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47720
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #16 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
In addition to comment #1
here's an excerpt of an existing test with just one dimension:
$ cat f_pr86389.f90
! PR 19239. Check for various kinds of vector subscript. In this test,
! all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #17 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?) or
would it be sufficient to just not dereference the array "before" the first
position like Mikael suggests in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83646
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973
Bug ID: 102973
Summary: possible inconsistency in procptr_assignment handling
when matching ASSOCIATE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103001
Bug ID: 103001
Summary: missing simplify of (CAF) get_team
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68800
--- Comment #6 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
at least a few down with r12-5073:
== LEAK SUMMARY:
-==definitely lost: 9,471 bytes in 14 blocks
-==indirectly lost: 18,267 bytes in 364 blocks
+==definitely lost: 6,472 bytes in 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101919
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103104
Bug ID: 103104
Summary: missing warning about superfluous forward declaration
-Wsuperfluous-forward-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103112
Bug ID: 103112
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field for
gfortran.dg/coarray_alloc_comp_4.f08 caf single
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103102
--- Comment #2 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90 ICEs similar to gfortran.dg/pr81175.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103102
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99884
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100972
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100991
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101337
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111460
Bug ID: 111460
Summary: -fdiagnostics-generate-patch=/out.diff to specify
patch output destination file
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105656
Bug ID: 105656
Summary: remove BROKEN_VALUE_INITIALIZATION workaround
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105656
--- Comment #2 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Yes, i've seen your bigger patch to remove all of these version conditionals.
But please note that this BROKEN_VALUE_INITIALIZATION was explicitly taylored
to catch aforementioned GCC versions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107743
Bug ID: 107743
Summary: expmed: extract_bit_field_1: maybe-uninitialized
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107743
--- Comment #2 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
--disable-werror --enable-checking=yes --enable-debug --enable-multilib
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107739
Bug ID: 107739
Summary: --enable-languages= duplicates yield odd error
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100972
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #13 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Consider the original testcase. Module CModule has no public symbols.
> Technically, the "use CModule" in module DModule should not have any effect.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #17 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #16)
> I'm testing a more elaborate test which keeps check_for_ambiguous in the
> same spot as before, but in that check, looks if the symtree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #18 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #17)
> (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #16)
>
> > I'm testing a more elaborate test which keeps check_for_ambiguous in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109624
Bug ID: 109624
Summary: dump-parse-tree prints attributes with unbalanced
braces
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #21 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
> C_PTR is an intrinsic DT and not a procedure;
> so we should not mark it as "generic".
Ok, that makes sense indeed.
>
> As long as a symbol from an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #16 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
> Under the assumption that we have a generic "c_ptr" in a module, we know (?)
> that "c_ptr" is not ambiguous.
>
> Is that right?
When we look at gmodule (when compiled when DModule has a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109003
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #10 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> The reduced testcase compiles for me with today's 13-trunk, but not
> 12-branch.
> However, the full original testcase fails with varying errors depending
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66054
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56781
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #11 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #10)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> > The reduced testcase compiles for me with today's 13-trunk, but not
> > 12-branch.
> > However,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109373
Bug ID: 109373
Summary: remove --enable-intermodule from libgfortran configure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #15 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #13)
> I'm testing a patch.
I have to admit that this is a mess.
It's even more frustrating now as i did some preparatory cleanup for at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110052
Bug ID: 110052
Summary: useless local variable not optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110052
--- Comment #4 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #3)
> Note that in this particular case myrealloc() is static, maybe i should have
> omitted the noipa attribute for it was only meant to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110052
--- Comment #3 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Note that in this particular case myrealloc() is static, maybe i should have
omitted the noipa attribute for it was only meant to simplify analysis and
there is no such attribute in the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78798
--- Comment #14 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Not yet fixed completely, Mikael correctly noted:
> Why not change the associated subfunctions
> (gfc_check_argument_dependency, gfc_check_argument_var_dependency) as well ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113277
Bug ID: 113277
Summary: RFE: analyzer diagnose allocation error leading to
pass NULL to snprintf
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
44 matches
Mail list logo
