[Bug fortran/121805] Incorrect results with pointer array input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121805 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to federico from comment #5) > > from my limited understanding the array version does not have a `dd.offset + > ` term that was set as `dd.offset = -1;`, This is expected. offset is used for user i

[Bug fortran/121805] Incorrect results with pointer array input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121805 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug fortran/121570] Very high cost of ieee_next_after function, gfortran optimization failure?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121570 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/121401] New: Pointer assignment from polymorphic pointer to non-polymorphic function result doesn't set the vtype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121401 Bug ID: 121401 Summary: Pointer assignment from polymorphic pointer to non-polymorphic function result doesn't set the vtype Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONF

[Bug fortran/107721] Lost typespec with constant expressions using array constructors and parentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug fortran/121384] New: Wrongly initialized associate array descriptor when the target is wrapped in parenthesis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121384 Bug ID: 121384 Summary: Wrongly initialized associate array descriptor when the target is wrapped in parenthesis Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/121342] polymorphic functions break elemental functions scalarisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121342 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Keywords|

[Bug fortran/121342] New: polymorphic functions break elemental functions scalarisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121342 Bug ID: 121342 Summary: polymorphic functions break elemental functions scalarisation Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #41 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #40) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #38) > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #37) > > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36) > > > > Created a

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #38 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #37) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36) > > Created attachment 61968 [details] > > Corrected third fix > > > > This one works. > > I checked the first fix

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61967|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #35 from Mikael Morin --- The three patches fix the problem (or at least one of them) independently, and I'm considering submitting all of them. I have to see what regresses with the third one. And I have to find how to test: if on

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #34 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 61967 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61967&action=edit Third fix This one regresses on: FAIL: gfortran.dg/bounds_check_27.f90 FAIL: gfortran.dg/dependency_60.f90 FA

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #33 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 61966 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61966&action=edit Second fix

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #32 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 61963 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61963&action=edit First fix

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 --- Comment #31 from Mikael Morin --- The problem is, in norm we use a polymorphic assignment to assign y%x, using the virtual table of y. It is a problem I have seen before on other testcases when preparing the patch, gfc_get_class_from_expr i

[Bug fortran/121185] [16 Regression] regression on elemental operation of division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/120743] ice in verify_gimple_in_seq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/120713] length of SAVEd character arrays not statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120713 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/120713] New: length of SAVEd character arrays not statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120713 Bug ID: 120713 Summary: length of SAVEd character arrays not statically initialized Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug fortran/119843] Failed to build 14.2.1 from sources on AlmaLimux10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119843 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/118896] The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |fortran --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin

[Bug fortran/118896] The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin --- Picking the smallest failing testcase: (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3) > PASS->FAIL:gfortran.dg/typebound_generic_6.f03 dse2 is changing this... [local count: 1073312328]: afab._vptr = &__v

[Bug fortran/118896] The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 60515 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60515&action=edit complete patch with changelog This is a complete variation of the patch from comment #1. Unfortunately it regr

[Bug fortran/118896] The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- This area of the code has an interesting history. TREE_READONLY was introduced for virtual tables with r0-114543 together with the fix for PR51809 diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-d

[Bug fortran/118896] The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- Draft patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc index 4ae22a5584d..95d39e837e9 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc @@ -2085,7 +2085,8 @@ gfc

[Bug fortran/118896] New: The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896 Bug ID: 118896 Summary: The fortran compiler is unable to devirtualize typebound indirect calls Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #20) > Right now, I am doing unsigned**unsigned. This is already a > bit larger than I originally thought. After this is committed, > we can still discuss how to ext

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/117643] F_C_STRING from F23 is missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu since r14-3485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/117258] tree check fail in gfc_trans_structure_assign, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:9691

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117258 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug other/116801] Many fortran options missing in lang.opt.urls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/116886] maxval/minval should not return empty result for empty array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0) > If I read J3/23-007 16.9.138 correctly, the following program should > print the minimum integer value, twice, but it prints nothing: > > program memain > impl

[Bug other/116801] Many fortran options missing in lang.opt.urls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- gcc's invoke.texi looks like: @opindex fpic @cindex global offset table @cindex PIC @item -fpic whereas gfortran's invoke.texi has: @opindex @code{ffree-form} @opindex @code{ffixed-form} @cindex options,

[Bug other/116801] New: Many fortran options missing in lang.opt.urls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801 Bug ID: 116801 Summary: Many fortran options missing in lang.opt.urls Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ot

[Bug fortran/116359] Nested contained procedures rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116359 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/116196] Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 58971 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58971&action=edit Draft patch This fixes the testcase. But the testcase is by far insufficient to thoroughly check the correctnes

[Bug fortran/116196] Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- More complete testcase: ! { dg-do run } ! { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" } ! ! PR fortran/116196 MODULE m IMPLICIT NONE INTEGER, TARGET :: arr(5) END MODULE m PROGRAM main USE m IMP

[Bug fortran/116359] New: Nested contained procedures rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116359 Bug ID: 116359 Summary: Nested contained procedures rejected Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/101919] Inconsistent -Wstringop-overread warning with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101919 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/116196] Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- Draft patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc index 15edf1af9df..348fd562ef6 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc @@ -1253,11 +1253,8 @@ ch

[Bug fortran/116196] New: Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 Bug ID: 116196 Summary: Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #21) > > (...) and should be able to submit the first > series (inline minloc without dim argument) this week. > I missed the "this week" mark (again), but I've finall

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #20) > Hi Mikael, > > I did regression testing on x86_64 and AArch64 and only found one test-ism. > > I think I understand most of the patch to be able to deal with

[Bug fortran/99798] ICE when compiling a variant of pr87907

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/115689] Missed deallocation before exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115689 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug fortran/102619] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_dtype, at fortran/trans-array.c:215 since r9-6493-g0e3088806577e805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/99798] ICE when compiling a variant of pr87907

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug fortran/114922] fsyntax-only need the modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/111293] [14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination since r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111293 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin --- For what's worth adding -fno-tree-vrp "fixes" this and enables removal of the call to 'foo' with trunk. Here is a minimal revert of the regressing revision, but it may just make the problem latent. diff --g

[Bug tree-optimization/111293] [14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination since r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111293 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/92178] Segmentation fault after passing allocatable array as intent(out) and its element as value into the same subroutine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|mikael at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/114475] [14 Regression] Regression with iso_c_binding and submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/107426] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types, at fortran/interface.cc:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/107426] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types, at fortran/interface.cc:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #10 from Mikael Mor

[Bug fortran/114475] [14 Regression] Regression with iso_c_binding and submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/103472] ICE in gfc_conv_ss_startstride, at fortran/trans-array.c:4527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103472 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||14.0 Known to fail|

[Bug fortran/105547] No further "Unclassifiable statement" after the first one if multiple syntax errors.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105547 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/105547] No further "Unclassifiable statement" after the first one if multiple syntax errors.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105547 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 57739 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57739&action=edit Patch fixing the problem This small patch fixes the problem. Unfortunately allowing more errors seems counter-p

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > > Excess errors: > > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/g

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6) > I need to reevaluate it; there were other regressions if I remember > correctly. The changes are these: PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 57571 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57571&action=edit Tentative patch (In reply to anlauf from comment #5) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > Thus I suggest

[Bug fortran/114141] ASSOCIATE and complex part ref when associate target is a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to kargl from comment #5) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > > > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > > > Yep, agreed. I went back an re-read the section about ASSOCIATE. > > > Not su

[Bug fortran/114141] ASSOCIATE and complex part ref when associate target is a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/113799] gfc_replace_expr: double free detected ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113799 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.0, 12.3.0,

[Bug fortran/113799] gfc_replace_expr: double free detected ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113799 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/86656] [meta-bug] Issues found with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656 Bug 86656 depends on bug 111291, which changed state. Bug 111291 Summary: ASAN error: heap-use-after-free gcc/fortran/parse.cc:359 in decode_statement https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/111291] ASAN error: heap-use-after-free gcc/fortran/parse.cc:359 in decode_statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/113377] Wrong code passing optional dummy argument to elemental procedure with optional dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > Note that the following scalar example also fails: > "Fortunately", it is invalid. :-) >From 15.5.2.12 (Argument presence and restrictions on arguments not present

[Bug fortran/113377] Wrong code passing optional dummy argument to elemental procedure with optional dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377 --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > Note that adding a scalar call in function one: > > r(1) = two (i(1), j) > > generates sane code: > > *((integer(kind=4) *) __result.0 + (sizetype) ((offset.1 +

[Bug fortran/46244] gfc_compare_derived_types is buggy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|mikael at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/113377] Wrong code passing optional dummy argument to elemental procedure with optional dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/111291] ASAN error: heap-use-after-free gcc/fortran/parse.cc:359 in decode_statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/113152] Fortran 2023 half-cycle trigonometric functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug libfortran/112412] Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libfortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libfortran/112412] Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libfortran/112412] New: Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412 Bug ID: 112412 Summary: Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug fortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- Possible culprit: ifunction.m4 has this code: retarray->base_addr = xmallocarray (alloc_size, sizeof (rtype_name)); if (alloc_size == 0) { /* Make sure we have a zero-sized arra

[Bug fortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- If dim == 3, the ubound and shape are (/ 9, 3, 7 /) as expected. That is, the problem only arises if the resulting array is empty.

[Bug fortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #0) > i = 1 > (...) > r = sum(a, dim=i) If i is inlined, that is r = sum(a, dim=1) the shape and ubound are (/ 3, 0, 7 /) as expected. The difference is p

[Bug fortran/112371] New: Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 Bug ID: 112371 Summary: Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56094|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- I'm trying to remove the formal_arg_flag global variables, which seem to just disable all the checks on dummy arguments. Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be simplified to thi

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #12) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11) > > Created attachment 56094 [details] > > Improved patch > > > > This improved patch (still single argument only)

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56091|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8) > (...) that is it was using too loops in a row in some cases. > ... *two* loops in a row ... (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9) > > Thanks Mikael! >

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 56091 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56091&action=edit Rough patch Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls. It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at l

[Bug fortran/107716] Getting negative values with NINT when using doubleprecision values in range on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug fortran/108957] Fortran FE memleak with interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

  1   2   3   >