https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-02-10 05:24:24 UTC ---
Dear Janus,
> Apparently it's not needed, since removing the line does not introduce any
> regressions in the testsuite. Perhaps it was making up for another bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-09
21:06:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I am going to commit the patch in comment #11 as obvious ...
Can you CC the patch to gcc-patches@ & fortran@?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 20:30:23 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Feb 9 20:30:20 2011
New Revision: 169985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169985
Log:
2011-02-09 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 20:18:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I do not see whether the line makes sense or not. The idea seems to be to fix
> not fully resolved TBP -- but it is not completely clear to me whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 18:08:45 UTC ---
The strange behavior of the test case in comment #9 can be cured by just
removing one peculiar line of code:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #10 from Diego Novillo 2011-02-02
18:12:05 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Feb 2 18:11:56 2011
New Revision: 169722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169722
Log:
2011-01-31 Janus Weil
PR fortran/47463
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-31
21:42:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > And the same without type-binding:
> > call init_comps(this, st, gr)
> > Error: Type mismatch in argument 'this' at (1); passed CLASS(flow_t) to
> > CL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-31 18:11:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jan 31 18:11:32 2011
New Revision: 169443
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169443
Log:
2011-01-31 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-31 14:49:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Alright, here is a draft patch:
The patch in comment #5 regtests cleanly. I will commit as obvious soon ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-31
11:03:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> hydro_flow.f90:55.13:
> call this%init(st, gr)
> 1
> Error: Found no matching specific binding for the call to the GENERIC
> 'init' at (1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #3 from Rich Townsend 2011-01-27
04:06:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > 4.5 fails with:
> > use hydro_recon
> > 1
> > Internal Error at (1):
> > mio_component_ref(): Component not f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
18 matches
Mail list logo
