[Bug target/78669] New: ICE: in combine_and_move_insns, at ira.c:3665 with -Os -fno-tree-ter -mavx512bw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78669 Bug ID: 78669 Summary: ICE: in combine_and_move_insns, at ira.c:3665 with -Os -fno-tree-ter -mavx512bw Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug fortran/59694] [F03] no finalization of an unused variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #4) > I meant to mark a different PR as invalid but marked this one mistakenly. Which one? So, should we reopen this one? > Now I just tried to reset its

[Bug other/78161] contrib/download_prerequisites fails on MacOS, Lubuntu, and Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78161 Damian Rouson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/37336] [F03] Finish derived-type finalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336 Bug 37336 depends on bug 59694, which changed state. Bug 59694 Summary: [F03] no finalization of an unused variable https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/59694] [F03] no finalization of an unused variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694 Damian Rouson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug fortran/59694] [F03] no finalization of an unused variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694 --- Comment #7 from Damian Rouson --- > On Dec 4, 2016, at 12:45 AM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org > wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #4) >> I meant to

[Bug fortran/59694] [F03] no finalization of an unused variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #7) > Hopefully this PR is finally back in the correct state. I think so. Thanks.

[Bug target/68467] libgcc, compilation for target m68k-linux breaks in linux_atomic.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467 --- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab --- The fact that libcalls aren't using the C ABI is likely hurting everyone.

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10) > This looks like a used-after-freed bug. Yes, it does. My first suspicion was that the problematic freeing happens at the end of variable_decl

[Bug sanitizer/77538] segmentation fault: thread sanitizer shadow stack overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538 --- Comment #24 from peien luo --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #23) > Please provide disassembly of the function that contains the PC > (__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator...). > Did we fix any bugs that lead to missed __tsan_func_exit

[Bug sanitizer/78663] [7 Regression] Hundreds of asan failures on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r243019

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Created attachment 40240 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40240=edit Patch from Iain Sandoe Results with the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-12/msg00469.html.

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:24:21PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 > > Maybe one can instead try to nullify the memory in gfc_free charlen, so that

[Bug fortran/45516] [F08] allocatable compontents of recursive type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #9) > Paul, can we close this PR, or is there anything left to do? ping!

[Bug other/70517] c++filt crashes when demangling a symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70517 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org Depends

[Bug c/78668] aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute alloc_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Blocks|

[Bug c/78284] warn on malloc with very large arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78284 Bug 78284 depends on bug 78668, which changed state. Bug 78668 Summary: aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute alloc_size https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/78673] sprintf missing attribute nonnull on destination argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78673 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug fortran/78443] [OOP] Incorrect behavior with non_overridable keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c/78668] aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute alloc_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Sun Dec 4 17:48:44 2016 New Revision: 243231 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243231=gcc=rev Log: PR c/78668 - aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute alloc_size

[Bug c++/71537] GCC rejects consetxpr boolean conversions and comparisons on the result of pointer arithmetic.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7) > Unfortunately, __builtin_memchr is not usable in constexpr contexts. Hardly > any of these builtins are. Can you explain why? Most of the builtins that can

[Bug fortran/78672] New: Gfortran test suite failures with a sanitized compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78672 Bug ID: 78672 Summary: Gfortran test suite failures with a sanitized compiler Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/78443] [OOP] Incorrect behavior with non_overridable keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Sun Dec 4 16:00:27 2016 New Revision: 243229 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243229=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-04 Janus Weil Backport from trunk

[Bug fortran/45521] [F08] GENERIC resolution with ALLOCATABLE/POINTER and PROCEDURE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521 --- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #15) > > Interpretation request F08/0001 / 10-145 changes this ("EDITS to 10-007")" > > > > '[286:4] In 12.4.3.4.5p3, after "the other has the POINTER attribute",

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #18) > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:24:21PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 > > > > Maybe one can

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #20) > So I guess one should find out where the symbol '__convert_s4_s1' obtains > its charlen and prevent that from happening ... I think that this is

[Bug c/78673] New: sprintf missing attribute nonnull on destination argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78673 Bug ID: 78673 Summary: sprintf missing attribute nonnull on destination argument Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/78670] New: Incorrect file position with namelist read under DTIO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78670 Bug ID: 78670 Summary: Incorrect file position with namelist read under DTIO Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/78663] [7 Regression] Hundreds of asan failures on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r243019

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/68467] libgcc, compilation for target m68k-linux breaks in linux_atomic.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467 --- Comment #13 from Waldemar Brodkorb --- Okay. So what is your opinion, how we proceed here?

[Bug fortran/78570] ICE in free_expr0, at fortran/expr.c:494

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78570 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/78633] [7 Regression] [SH] libgcc/fp-bit.c:944:1: error: invalid rtl sharing found in the insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633 --- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1) > Here is a trial patch > > diff --git a/config/sh/sh.md b/config/sh/sh.md > index c6956a0..c83bf08 100644 > --- a/config/sh/sh.md > +++ b/config/sh/sh.md > @@

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Possibly the origin of the problem lies in the fact that the symbol '__convert_s4_s1' gets a constant ts.u.cl of '1' after all? IIUC __convert_s4_s1 is used to convert character strings of any

[Bug ada/48835] porting GNAT to m68k-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glaubitz at physik dot

[Bug fortran/78226] Fill out location information everywhere

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Current regressions with the patch at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00039.html : > > allocate_with_source_10.f08 allocate_with_source_11.f08 > ... What are the failures? I have an

[Bug rtl-optimization/78671] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2213 with -Og -march=skylake-avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78671 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:16AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 > > --- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #16) > Index: resolve.c > === > --- resolve.c (revision 243227) > +++ resolve.c (working

[Bug target/68467] libgcc, compilation for target m68k-linux breaks in linux_atomic.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467 --- Comment #11 from Waldemar Brodkorb --- I talking about following change: diff -Nur gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host gcc/libgcc/config.host --- gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host 2016-02-26 21:02:28.0 +0100 +++ gcc/libgcc/config.host

[Bug fortran/78226] Fill out location information everywhere

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- Current regressions with the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00039.html : allocate_with_source_10.f08 allocate_with_source_11.f08 allocate_with_source_13.f03 allocate_with_source_14.f03

[Bug fortran/78443] [OOP] Incorrect behavior with non_overridable keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443 --- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Sun Dec 4 16:34:13 2016 New Revision: 243230 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243230=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-04 Janus Weil Backport from trunk

[Bug target/68467] libgcc, compilation for target m68k-linux breaks in linux_atomic.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467 --- Comment #14 from Larry Baker --- (In reply to Waldemar Brodkorb from comment #11) > diff -Nur gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host gcc/libgcc/config.host > --- gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host 2016-02-26 21:02:28.0 +0100 > +++

[Bug c++/68700] demangler failed with signal 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68700 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org Depends

[Bug target/68467] libgcc, compilation for target m68k-linux breaks in linux_atomic.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467 --- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab --- linux-atomic is independent of libc and libpthread, it implements compiler intrinsics and only depends on the kernel support for CAS on Coldfire.

[Bug rtl-optimization/78669] [7 Regression]: ICE: in combine_and_move_insns, at ira.c:3665 with -Os -fno-tree-ter -mavx512bw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78669 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/78226] Fill out location information everywhere

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- It appears that the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00040.html actually catches more errors than the original one. So, more cases to find... Nice thing is, one fix can fix quite a large

[Bug target/70322] STV doesn't optimize andn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322 --- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Sun Dec 4 14:38:05 2016 New Revision: 243228 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243228=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70322 * config/i386/i386.c

[Bug fortran/78226] Fill out location information everywhere

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > It appears that the patch at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00040.html > > actually catches more errors than the original one. Confirmed.

[Bug target/78671] New: ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2213 with -Og -march=skylake-avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78671 Bug ID: 78671 Summary: ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2213 with -Og -march=skylake-avx512 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug target/78642] [7 regression] ICE: invalid rtl sharing found in the insn on sparc

as fixed by your emit-rtl.c change. I'm still seeing it on Solaris 10, 11 and 12 between 20161201 (r243113) and 20161204 (r243227), both when using as and gas: $ cc1 -fpreprocessed 20030917-1.i -quiet -mcpu=v9 -O3 -ftracer -finline-functions -o 20030917-1.s /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gc

[Bug other/78252] C++ demangler crashes with infinite recursion with lambda (auto)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78252 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/69481] ICE with C++11 alias using with templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69481 PeteVine changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tulipawn at gmail dot com --- Comment #10

[Bug other/62279] Demangler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62279 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug other/61805] Demangler crash (GDB PR 17157)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61805 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/78519] missing warning for sprintf %s with null pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78519 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, patch --- Comment #2 from

[Bug fortran/78676] New: Optimizer bug exposed by program with many bit operations.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676 Bug ID: 78676 Summary: Optimizer bug exposed by program with many bit operations. Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/78676] Optimizer bug exposed by program with many bit operations.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This sounds like overflows are happening. Overflow in fortran is undefined.

[Bug fortran/78676] Optimizer bug exposed by program with many bit operations.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Try -fwrapv .

[Bug tree-optimization/78529] [7 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strcat-chk.c failed with lto/O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529 --- Comment #17 from Jim Wilson --- I still haven't been able to reproduce this, but I do see a problem. In the original bug report, the only difference is that the code uses x4 in the first part of the diff, and x24 in the second part of the

[Bug other/67738] infinite recursion in libiberty/cp-demangle.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67738 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/78675] New: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: integral result type precision does not match field size of BIT_FIELD_REF)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78675 Bug ID: 78675 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: integral result type precision does not match field size of BIT_FIELD_REF) Product: gcc

[Bug rtl-optimization/78342] [7 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2657 (error: flow control insn inside a basic block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342 --- Comment #10 from Arseny Solokha --- Should this PR be closed now?

[Bug rtl-optimization/78610] [7 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2656 (error: flow control insn inside a basic block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78610 --- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha --- Should this PR be closed now?

[Bug fortran/78676] Optimizer bug exposed by program with many bit operations.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676 --- Comment #2 from mecej4 at operamail dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > This sounds like overflows are happening. Overflow in fortran is undefined. Very much so, but integer overflow happens a lot in random number

[Bug rtl-optimization/78610] [7 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2656 (error: flow control insn inside a basic block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78610 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- Nope, backports are needed.

[Bug rtl-optimization/78342] [7 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2657 (error: flow control insn inside a basic block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- No, we probably still want backports.

[Bug middle-end/17308] nonnull attribute not as useful as it could

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug libstdc++/78677] New: __gthread_key_create assumed not to fail in eh_globals.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78677 Bug ID: 78677 Summary: __gthread_key_create assumed not to fail in eh_globals.cc Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/78574] [7 Regression] ice on valid C code at -O2 and -O3 in both 32- and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu (internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Do you mean gfc_convert_type_warn? Yes, copy with two left thumbs!-(

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #30 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #29) > I'm now regtesting this: No failures! Will commit this soon. For gfc_convert_type_warn the changes are possibly not really necessary (since it deals with

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #31 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Sun Dec 4 20:31:26 2016 New Revision: 243232 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243232=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-04 Janus Weil PR fortran/78618

[Bug fortran/78674] New: [cleanup] merge gfc_convert_type_warn and gfc_convert_chartype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78674 Bug ID: 78674 Summary: [cleanup] merge gfc_convert_type_warn and gfc_convert_chartype Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #22 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 06:01:29PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 > > --- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to janus from

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #23) > > This fixes the SIGSEGV on i686-*-freebsd. I'm starting > > a full regression test now. I think you found the > > solution! > > Regression testing

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #27 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 07:17:52PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 > > --- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Confirmed here too! > >

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #26 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #25) > There is a similar construct for gfc_convert_chartype. Should not the same > patch apply there too? I guess you mean gfc_convert_type_warn?

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #33 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #30) > It might even be a good idea to merge the two functions into one, in order > to get rid of the code duplication. But I'm not sure if there are any >

[Bug fortran/45516] [F08] allocatable compontents of recursive type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/39627] [meta-bug] Fortran 2008 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627 Bug 39627 depends on bug 45516, which changed state. Bug 45516 Summary: [F08] allocatable compontents of recursive type https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/78633] [7 Regression] [SH] libgcc/fp-bit.c:944:1: error: invalid rtl sharing found in the insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633 --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima --- I've tried a bi-sect on git tree. The ICE went away with commit c95f3fa2db12f22bbb2158d18c95f6714b4292b8 Author: krebbel Date: Fri Dec 2 08:32:40 2016

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Confirmed here too! There is a similar construct for gfc_convert_chartype. Should not the same patch apply there too?

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #29 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'm now regtesting this: Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c === --- gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c (revision 243224) +++

[Bug fortran/78674] [cleanup] merge gfc_convert_type_warn and gfc_convert_chartype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78674 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/68383] Demangler stack overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68383 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org Depends

[Bug fortran/78670] [F03] Incorrect file position with namelist read under DTIO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78670 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/78534] Use a larger integer type for character lengths on 64-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534 --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle --- Note: PR66310 is a related issue.

[Bug c++/71537] GCC rejects consetxpr boolean conversions and comparisons on the result of pointer arithmetic.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think we need __builtin_memchr et al to be usable in constant expressions, because replacing them with hand-written loops would be a step backwards. For uses outside constant expressions we want to go to

[Bug fortran/78618] ICE in gfc_check_rank, at fortran/check.c:3670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618 --- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 06:43:08PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > This fixes the SIGSEGV on i686-*-freebsd. I'm starting > a full regression test now. I think you found the >

[Bug fortran/78534] Use a larger integer type for character lengths on 64-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534 Janne Blomqvist changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40154|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug other/67264] Infinite recursion of demangler on fuzzed input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67264 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org Depends

[Bug c++/70909] Libiberty Demangler segfaults (4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909 --- Comment #38 from Mark Wielaard --- For reference the symbols in comment #4 and the reduced case from comment #14 are fixed by the patch proposed for Bug 78252 - C++ demangler crashes with infinite recursion with lambda (auto). The patch

[Bug other/61460] Demangler crash (GDB PR 17043)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61460 --- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard --- The patch proposed in bug #70909 does prevent the infinite recursiong crashing the demangler. But it doesn't demangle the symbol (just rejects it).