http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404
Bug #: 50404
Summary: SIGSEGV in gfc_resolve_close
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50405
Bug #: 50405
Summary: allocation LOOP or SIGSEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
Bug #: 50406
Summary: ld undefined reference to __MOD_str
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
Bug #: 50407
Summary: compiler confused by .operator.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
Bug #: 50408
Summary: ICE in transfer_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50409
Bug #: 50409
Summary: SIGSEGV in gfc_simplify_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Bug #: 50410
Summary: ICE in record_reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50411
Bug #: 50411
Summary: gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in vect_recog_dot_prod_pattern
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Bug #: 50412
Summary: gfortran -Ofast ICE in vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
Bug #: 50415
Summary: gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in find_uses_to_rename_use
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Bug #: 50414
Summary: gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in store_constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50416
Bug #: 50416
Summary: gfortran -O1 ICE MPFR assertion failed: 0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-15
20:21:04 UTC ---
I believe the code is valid, and it has nothing to do with recursive I/O.
If you comment out the write in the mul function gfortran still fails, so it
does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-15
20:26:18 UTC ---
I created it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Bug #: 50426
Summary: gfortran -O1 ICE in estimate_function_body_sizes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-15
20:36:54 UTC ---
I disagree, the Fortran 95 standard at R911 allows PRINT format
and R913 says that format may be a default-char-expr
Now, 2.ip.8 is a default character
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-16
07:12:52 UTC ---
You asked where do I get such an enormous amount of invalid fortran code.
Probably I was too terse in my answer.
I created invalid codes to check corner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-16
07:22:09 UTC ---
If you add
character(9) s
s=2.ip.8
gfortran, and g95, compile successfully.
On the contrary gfortran fails to parse
write(6,fmt=2.ip.8)
To me, it looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-18
17:38:10 UTC ---
The following produces a Segmentation fault in gfc_conv_structure (r178925)
type t
integer g
end type
type(t) :: u=t(1)
data u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
Bug #: 50514
Summary: gfortran should check ISHFT ISHFTC aruments
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50515
Bug #: 50515
Summary: gfortran should not accept an external that is a
common (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50516
Bug #: 50516
Summary: gfortran must detect illegal statements in a block
data (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
Bug #: 50517
Summary: gfortran must detect that actual argument type is
different from dummy argument type (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50524
Bug #: 50524
Summary: *** glibc detected *** invalid free() pointer on
illegal code (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50525
Bug #: 50525
Summary: gfortran should not allow early reference to entry
dummy argument (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50535
Bug #: 50535
Summary: transformational intrinsic functions not allowed in
statement functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50536
Bug #: 50536
Summary: an input item shall not appear as the do-variable of
any io-implied-do
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50537
Bug #: 50537
Summary: explicit interface required (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50538
Bug #: 50538
Summary: formal argument cannot be same as procedure name
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539
Bug #: 50539
Summary: Internal error gfc_match_entry(): Bad state
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Bug #: 50540
Summary: Internal Error: Can't convert UNKNOWN to INTEGER(4)
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
Bug #: 50541
Summary: gfortran should not accept a pointer as a generic-name
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50542
Bug #: 50542
Summary: gfortran should detect violation of Fortran 95 R536
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50546
Bug #: 50546
Summary: gfortran should not accept missing operator (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
Bug #: 50547
Summary: dummy procedure argument of PURE shall be PURE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50548
Bug #: 50548
Summary: gfortran -fcheck=all run time would be nice to detect
different shapes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50549
Bug #: 50549
Summary: should detect different type parameters in structure
constructors (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
Bug #: 50550
Summary: does not recognize pointer variable at initialization
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50551
Bug #: 50551
Summary: Argumentless NULL() cannot be used with assumed-length
dummy (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
Bug #: 50552
Summary: type name cannot be statement function dummy argument
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
Bug #: 50553
Summary: statement function cannot be target (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Bug #: 50554
Summary: INQUIRE cannot redefine DO index(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Bug #: 50555
Summary: synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument
not allowed (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
Bug #: 50556
Summary: cannot save namelist group name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-28
09:20:40 UTC ---
I meant checking static expressions at compilation time, as in my example.
This has no cost at run time.
You proposed a run time check that still should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-29
06:58:24 UTC ---
About run time checking: I believe the bit size of k is known at compile time,
and the overhead to check n against it is negligible as compared to computing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-10-18
13:55:31 UTC ---
I am traveling in Korea, and I cannot look at the standard now.
If you believe this is a non-issue then please close it.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44343
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44345
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44349
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44351
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44354
--- Comment #2 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-05-31 18:37 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in fold_convert_loc
In that case gfortran should emit an error message, but it should not crash.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44345
--- Comment #9 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-05-31 21:37 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect output at run time
In my example 'i' is local to the array constructor, while 'I' is
global and is initialized with value 5, so that the statement should
display '1 2 3 4 5'. I agree
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44360
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44395
: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44791
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44792
--- Comment #2 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-07-03 09:15 ---
Subject: Re: data.f90 accesses undefined variable
I believe it should be
+ if (any(tmp2(1)%t1(1)%a(1:3:2) .ne. (/111,113/))) call abort
or (1:4:2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44792
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44797
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44798
same kind
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64
--- Comment #5 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-07-08 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: INQUIRE EXIST variable must be default
LOGICAL
By the way, the NUMBER variable must be default INTEGER as well.
Do you agree there is the same problem as with the EXIST variable?
Vittorio
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44873
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44922
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #2 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-07-25 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: array function not fully defined
The undefined elements of test are accessed at instruction a =
test(6, 5) - a however. It is just that the code probably violates
any Fortran standard. If the test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Same behaviour in 4.9.2 in trans-array.c line 2206
typespec_chararray_ctor = (expr-ts.u.cl
expr-ts.u.cl-length_from_typespec);
It seems length_from_typespec is wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Still in 5.1.0 at trans-array.c:2223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61908
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Stiil in 5.1.0 at interface.c:2701
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61908
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I still have the same runtime error message in 4.9.2
Trying compilation of
!from unlimited_polymorphic_16.f90
!../../gcc-4.9.2/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2667:43: runtime error: load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58233
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Still there on 4.9.2 at trans-expr.c:6193
if (!c-expr || (cm-attr.allocatable cm-attr.flavor != FL_PROCEDURE))
/home/vitti/gcc-4.9.2-sanitize/test/f951 p.f
MAIN__
p.f:1:0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined issues spurious error message */
/* OK without sanitizer */
/* Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu */
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67279
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
UB = undefined behaviour?
Why then it is only signaled if static attribute is requested?
This is accepted:int dec_1 = 1 31;
Isn't UB as well if it is not static?
I believe gcc should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67279
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
The following code has UB at lines 4 and 5 but compiles with
-fsanitize=undefined
int main()
{
int test[1],t;
t=test[1];
return test[1];
}
Its execution it delivers four runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
A shorter source file displaying the same bug:
// from pr42049.c
// gcc -funroll-loops -O
// ../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/loop-iv.c:2670:14: runtime error:
// signed integer overflow: 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Maybe the easiest way to reproduce the issue is as in the following;
gdb ~/local/gcc-5.2.0-sanitized/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.2.0/cc1
GNU gdb (GDB) Fedora 7.8.2-39.fc21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I fixed this one by substituting rtlanal.c:4907
if (bitwidth HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT )
with
if (bitwidth HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT || !bitwidth)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 61943, which changed state.
Bug 61943 Summary: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c:4148 signed integer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61943
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61943
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64920
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running a sanitized version of gcc 5.2.0 I get the following:
// ../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fold-const.c:16036:8: runtime error: negation of
-2147483648 cannot be represented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62058
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Still there in GCC 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67279
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
On my side it has to do with the C standard.
Compilation with -ansi or -std=c90 is successful.
Compilation with -std=c99 fails.
Compiling with g++ is OK.
The behaviour I would like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I see only two NULL dereferencing in ipa-prop.c my lines 2479 and 2545
same statement
dst_ctx-combine_with (ctx);
Did you take care of both of them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
No, it is not valid, but gfortran should signal this with an error message.
Not with a crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I should have written that I tried it not only on the test case I sent
but on the whole fortran
testsuite in gcc/testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Just confirmed adding
printf(up=%li down=%li up-down=%li\n, up,down,up-down);
before line 2670.
Output is
up=123 down=-9223372036854775808 up-down=-9223372036854775685
You could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I confirm the patch works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I am having the same problem in 5.2.0:
/* must be compiled with -O[1] -funroll-loops -foptimize-sibling-calls
-finline-small-functions */
/* target x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I have a version of gcc 5.2.0 compiled with the -fsanitize=undefined option.
This sanitized version gave me a runtime error due to dereferencing
the pointer dst_ctx
which was NULL
101 - 200 of 564 matches
Mail list logo
