[Bug fortran/34693] [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/common_6.f90 -O

2008-01-06 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-06 22:23 --- I don't know. When I investigated PR 33375, I found that that the symbol existed but was uninitialized. I do not understand why it started to fail with x86-64 but valgrind showed it used also before uninitialized memo

[Bug fortran/34693] [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/common_6.f90 -O

2008-01-06 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2008-01-06 21:54 --- Why didn't I see it with revision 131352? -- hjl at lucon dot org changed: What|Removed |Added S

[Bug fortran/34693] [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/common_6.f90 -O

2008-01-06 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-06 21:50 --- To my understanding the problem existed before though it did not crash as often as it does now. Before it failed here only with -m64 now also with -m32, but I believe it is the same problem and thus unrelated to the f

[Bug fortran/34693] [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/common_6.f90 -O

2008-01-06 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2008-01-06 21:47 --- It may be introduced by the fix for bug 34658. -- hjl at lucon dot org changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugs