On 5/6/25 10:59 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
the new logic misses the following bad code:
print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), 42)
This now ICEs here.
I suggest to not 'return true' too early before all arguments
have been checked.
Dear all,
here's another rather obvious case where a temporary is needed for
an inquiry reference of a complex array which is a component of a
derived type. In contrast to PR119986, the argument is handled
within the code for the intrinsic TRANSFER, so that the other
patch did not catch the pres
On 5/6/25 19:25, Jerry D wrote:
I am seeing this today. I do not think it is related to my patch.
Running /home/jerry/dev/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-
lo
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the new logic misses the following bad code:
>
> print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), 42)
>
> This now ICEs here.
>
> I suggest to not 'return true' too early before all arguments
> have been checked.
>
Good catch, Harald. We
Hi Jerry, all,
the new logic misses the following bad code:
print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), 42)
This now ICEs here.
I suggest to not 'return true' too early before all arguments
have been checked.
Cheers,
Harald
On 5/6/25 19:15, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/6/25 12:44 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wr
See https://gcc.gnu.org/PR120099.
I am seeing this today. I do not think it is related to my patch.
Running /home/jerry/dev/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-
On 5/6/25 9:51 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 08:30:09PM -0700, Jerry D wrote:
Attached patch fixes this by checking for BT_VOID and EXPR_FUNCTION.
Thank you for guidance from Steve in the PR and Vincent for
identifying the problem.
Two test case files added to the testsuite.
On 5/6/25 12:44 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
HI Jerry,
The patch looks good to me. OK for mainline and for backporting. I never
quite know what to suggest for delaying backporting and so I will leave
it to your judgement.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
Thanks Paul, committed as:
commit r16
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 08:30:09PM -0700, Jerry D wrote:
> Attached patch fixes this by checking for BT_VOID and EXPR_FUNCTION.
>
> Thank you for guidance from Steve in the PR and Vincent for
> identifying the problem.
>
> Two test case files added to the testsuite.
>
> Regression tested on x86_
Hi Harald,
It appears that something is not right and generates wrong code with
the check enabled. Can you have another look?
The problem was indeed that generating a formal from an actual
arglist is a bad idea when classes are involved. Fixed in the
attached patch. I think it still makes s
HI Jerry,
The patch looks good to me. OK for mainline and for backporting. I never
quite know what to suggest for delaying backporting and so I will leave it
to your judgement.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Tue, 6 May 2025 at 04:30, Jerry D wrote:
> Attached patch fixes this by checking for
12 matches
Mail list logo
