https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #39 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41dee7da08873721a719849d19ef07c027e76dfb
commit r15-9749-g41dee7da08873721a719849d19ef07c027e76dfb
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #38 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c69afa2f1bd7455457ab4e028a6bc51211b2dd20
commit r16-967-gc69afa2f1bd7455457ab4e028a6bc51211b2dd20
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With this now pushed, I plan to backport to 15 in a few days. I also want to
revise the langauge of the error messages to be clearer. This will wiggle on
several existing test cases so I want it to be a se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #36 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42983ffde6612b7f8a4e7ab3e76fa8b0d136e854
commit r16-915-g42983ffde6612b7f8a4e7ab3e76fa8b0d136e854
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61475|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61445|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #32)
> The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
> :
Preparing for the backport of the follow-on patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #32 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc21caefbc2d63be1315ca062e977affa74eacc2
commit r15-9695-gdc21caefbc2d63be1315ca062e977affa74eacc2
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #31 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Steve, I am still working on it. Always other things getting me in the time
domain. (poles and zeros so to speak, LOL)
I do like some of the checks in Comment #27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I was also working on a patch as well and it occurred to me that we need the
logic to go like this with a helper function:
// helper function, possibly two arguments here for checking
bool checkthearg (ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #27 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 5/10/25 06:21, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
>
> --- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Have you tried to move some of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Have you tried to move some of the checks *after* the resolution stage?
The checks in check.cc are invoked rather early. Maybe look into
trans-intrinsic.cc (conv_isocbinding_function)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #25 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 5/9/25 20:22, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
>
> --- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> It is interestingly complex. As I try dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
It is interestingly complex. As I try different test cases I learn new things.
For example this error is caught already somewhere else in the code path. I am
going to identify where tomorrow. This may be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #23 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 5/9/25 17:50, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
>
> Jerry DeLisle changed:
>
> What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I forgot to mention that when you flip the test example around:
print *, c_associated(42, c_loc(val))
It also gives an internal error. So I am taking care of it as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Obviously, LOL, I threw myself off the trail. Thanks Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #19 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 5/6/25 18:57, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Some fall out after the commit. This may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Some fall out after the commit. This may be an unrelated regression on 16.
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0571638a6bad932b226ada98b167fa47a47d838
commit r16-428-gd0571638a6bad932b226ada98b167fa47a47d838
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062094.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch regressions tests OK. I dont know how to do a test case that requires
two files to compile. I am looking through the test suite for the incantations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 61307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61307&action=edit
Prelimnary patch to fix this.
With the attached patch this case compiles and runs.
$ cat z2.f90
program tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #13 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 5/4/25 16:51, kargls at comcast dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
>
> --- Comment #12 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #12 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #11)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> > program tests_gtk_sup
> >use gtk_sup
> >implicit none
> >type(c_ptr), target :: val
> >prin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> program tests_gtk_sup
>use gtk_sup
>implicit none
>type(c_ptr), target :: val
>print *, c_associated(val, c_loc(val))
>print *, c_associated(c_loc(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have a patch now that addresses the original problem and regression tests
fine whcih I will submit to the gfortran list. Before I do that I want to
explore these other cases given in Comment #8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
>
> I assume that you've found that you'll need to
> deal with both c_pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #8 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
I assume that you've found that you'll need to
deal with both c_ptr_1 and c_ptr_2. With the
short-cir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> $ gfc -c test.f90
> f951: internal compiler error: gfc_typename(): Undefined type
> 0x694bce diagnostic_report_diagnostic(diagnostic_context*, diagn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Vincent was able to reduce this further. Two files, gtk_sup.f90 and test.f90.
$ cat gtk_sup.f90
module gtk_sup
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
end module gtk_sup
$ cat test.f90
program tests_gtk_sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should mention That this issue was first identified by Vincent Magnin.
Vincent has also confirmed the issue on gfortran 11.5 on Ubuntu. There is also
a variation where it compiles and segfaults at run tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With the original test case, the following eliminates the ICE.
diff --git a/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90 b/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90
index 8f8168b..ab47c8d 100644
--- a/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90
+++ b/examp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
40 matches
Mail list logo
