https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com> --- Hi Harald, I will have a stab at backporting r14-1629 later this afternoon and will let you know what happens. I am just rebuilding after applying the fix for pr112407 (yes, I did add -std=f2008 :-) ). I don't think that there is any point in going back to 12-branch at this point in the release cycle. Cheers Paul On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 21:42, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|NEW |ASSIGNED > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5) > > Hi Harald, > > > > I am pinning this one on you since it needs backporting to 13-branch, at > > least. It also keeps the audit trail clean. > > Hi Paul, > > this one is at the top of my backport list. > > It depends on backporting r14-8902 (mine), and has weak conflict if > r14-1629 (yours) is not backported, as testcase gfortran.dg/pr99350.f90 > was introduced in that commit. > > I could amend backporting the fix for the current PR as well as r14-8902 > to 13-branch by removing the changes to pr99350.f90 from the backport. > That is likely the most simple solution, as backporting r14-1629 might > introduce regressions. > > Nevertheless, the current fixes can only be backported to 13-branch, > as some of the infrastructure changes for better error recovery after > arithmetic errors and when array ctors are involved are to risky to > backport to 12-branch. > > What do you think? > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
