https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||woodard at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
--- Comment #11 from james.s.spencer at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #10)
> Fixed now on the gcc-7 branch as well. Thanks James for reporting, and
> Martin for bisecting!
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
--- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:01:20 2017
New Revision: 254706
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254706=gcc=rev
Log:
Introduce logical_type_node and use it
Backport from trunk.
Earlier GFortran used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Fixed on trunk. I'll wait a few days for possible fallout and then backport it
to the GCC-7 release as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Nov 8 11:51:00 2017
New Revision: 254526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254526=gcc=rev
Log:
PR 82869 Introduce logical_type_node and use it
Earlier GFortran used to redefine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:40:52PM +, james.s.spencer at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> The third example occurs without the sanitizer enabled.
>
Grouping multiple bug reports into one is probably not
a good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
--- Comment #2 from james.s.spencer at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to james.s.spencer from comment #0)
> > I think if a pointer, p, is C_NULL_PTR then c_associated(p) should always
> > return false. However,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
12 matches
Mail list logo
