http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Test case from PR 57306 comment 7 (see also
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-07/msg00103.html):
type :: c
end type c
type(c), target :: x
class(c), pointer :: px => x
if (.not. assoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
>
> + if ((gfc_current_state () == COMP_MODULE
> + || gfc_current_state () == COMP_PROGRAM)
>
> I haven't tried the patch, but does it work corr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28620|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> I think we need the patch in comment 6 after all. But how do we get rid of
> the remaining regressions?
Simplest solution: Move the code in these test cases fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 17:45:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 28620
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28620
patch
Here is an extended patch, based on comment 3, which fixes the storage_size_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 09:37:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Most of them seem to be scan-tree-dump failures, except for:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/storage_size_3.f08 -O0 execution test
>
> which app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 09:07:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Therefore it has the same testsuite failures as the patch in
> comment 1 (possibly more?).
Indeed it has a few more ...
FAIL: gfortran.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 22:48:37 UTC ---
The following patch applies the implicit SAVE attribute to variables declared
in the main program:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 22:26:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Patch:
Note: The patch in comment 1 only fixes the auto-deallocation for scalars.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 18:32:29 UTC ---
Patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c(revision 193135)
+++ gcc
13 matches
Mail list logo
