https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42385
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 08:09 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Fixed on trunk
Really close as FIXED. Thanks for the patch.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-07-19 20:12 ---
Subject: Re: [OOP] poylmorphic operators do not work
Fixed on trunk
Paul
> Author: pault
> Date: Mon Jul 19 18:48:44 2010
> New Revision: 162313
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=re
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 18:49 ---
Subject: Bug 42385
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 19 18:48:44 2010
New Revision: 162313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162313
Log:
2010-07-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/42385
* int
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 13:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=21221)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21221&action=view)
Fix for the PR
Please note that this patch contains part of Janus' clean-up of vtabs diff.
This came about becau
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 21:43 ---
The test cases in comment 3 (attachment 21184) and comment 4 (attachment 20927)
are now tracked in PR 44936 - and fixed by the draft patch there.
The original test case (comment 0) still generates wrong code and the
--- Comment #5 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-07-13 09:24 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Carry on the test case from PR 43945 comment 19 (cf. also PR 43945 comment 30,
> 31, 32):
>
>
> As the test case in comment 3 (attachment 21184 [edit]) is different from the
> one of
> PR
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 09:17 ---
Carry on the test case from PR 43945 comment 19 (cf. also PR 43945 comment 30,
31, 32):
Salvatore wrote:
> Yup, but after discussion with Janus, it seems the failing part is not
> dynamic dispatching, but compile-tim
--- Comment #3 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-07-12 14:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=21184)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21184&action=view)
additional test-case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42385
--- Comment #2 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-07-12 14:58 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi Damian,
This is related to the original test case for PR 43945; that test case is now
going to handle the dynamic side of it, but the problem with generics exists
with normal typebound proc
--- Comment #1 from damian at rouson dot net 2010-05-21 14:01 ---
As suggested by Janus and Paul, I'm adding the additional test case below. Note
that the first two pointer assignments in main are not necessary to demonstrate
the linking problem. I put them there (1) to give more detail
11 matches
Mail list logo
