https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com> --- At least it is one of the less harmful bits of code that I have introduced :-) Yes, it can go. Thanks Paul On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 01:18, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297 > > --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1) > > svn blame says: > > > > 182796 pault for (args= e->value.function.actual; args; args = > > args->next) > > 182796 pault { > > 182796 pault if (expr == args->expr) > > 182796 pault expr = args->expr; > > 182796 pault } > > > > so this code looks pretty old. > > So, replacing expr = args->expr with gcc_unreachable() finds > that at gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_[7,8,9,11,21].{f90|f03} > die with an ICE. Completely removing the section of code > in question causes no problem with the testsuite. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
