[Bug fortran/45170] [F2003] allocatable character lengths

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 --- Comment #42 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 20:22:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #41) > With version 4.7.2 this bug still exists. Is there any timeline to fix it? > > [...] > > Both allocates triggers

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 21:25:09 UTC --- Here is a further reduced test case, based on comment 1 and 3 (which are basically identical): program main implicit none integer, pointer :: y(:) y

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 22:26:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > program main > implicit none > > integer, pointer :: y(:) > > y => null() > call a4t2(y) > &g

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 22:31:06 UTC --- Draft patch: Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c === --- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c(revision 195644

[Bug fortran/56218] [OOP] Segfault with allocatable intent(out) derived type argument having allocatable component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56218 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/56218] [OOP] Segfault with allocatable intent(out) derived type argument having allocatable component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56218 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:08:59 UTC --- Here is a draft patch, which seems to fix the test case: Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c === --- gcc

[Bug fortran/56218] [OOP] Segfault with allocatable intent(out) derived type argument having allocatable component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56218 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:16:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > If I'm not missing anything, I think we should pass 'f' directly instead of > '&f': > &

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:54:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > + if (fsym && fsym->attr.optional && sym && sym->attr.pointer)

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 11:44:46 UTC --- Here is an updated patch, which works for pointers and pointer components, uses GFC_STD_F2008 and does some minor refactoring: Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 12:54:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > That generates the code: > D.1896 = x != 0B > ? (struct array1_integer(kind=4) *) _gfortran_interna

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 13:56:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > It seems to work just as well as the patch in comment #18 and is much simpler. > Also it could catch this sort of thing in

[Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 --- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 19:39:43 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Wed Feb 6 19:39:35 2013 New Revision: 195814 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195814 Log: 2013-02-06 Ja

[Bug fortran/55978] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW

[Bug fortran/56226] Add support for DEC UNION and MAP extensions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/55907] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with -fno-automatic -finit-local-zero

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55907 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 22:02:09 UTC --- The following, which is a partial revert of r183180, fixes the ICE: Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c

[Bug fortran/55907] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with -fno-automatic -finit-local-zero

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55907 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 22:57:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > The following, which is a partial revert of r183180, fixes the ICE: However, it fails on init_flag_9.f90, which the following version d

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-09 10:03:06 UTC --- Fortunately there is a simple workaround: Declaring the procedure pointer as procedure(ff), pointer :: f => ff makes the segfault go away.

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-09 10:08:23 UTC --- Actually I wonder whether the test case is really valid. The problem is: When declaring the procedure pointer without an interface, we don't know which kin

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-09 10:17:16 UTC --- One can play the same game with scalars, where the situation is even more severe: module t type :: nc integer :: n = 1 end type nc contains

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/55907] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with -fno-automatic -finit-local-zero

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55907 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-09 15:34:34 UTC --- The patch in comment 5 regtests cleanly!

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-09 16:58:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > On the test case in comment 2, comment 1? > ifort v11.1 reports: > > > ifort -o bug.exe bug.F90 > bug.F90(23):

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-09 18:25:33 UTC --- I just noticed that there is already related diagnostics in resolve.c (resolve_global_procedure): /* F2003, 12.3.1.1 (2d); F2008, 12.4.2.2 (2e

[Bug fortran/56266] [OOP] ICE on invalid in gfc_match_varspec

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56266 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with contained routine which inappropriately compares a string and a number

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[OOP] ICE with contained|[OOP] ICE with

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-11 13:57:36 UTC --- The combined patches of comment 4 and 5 yield the following testsuite failures: FAIL: gfortran.dg/altreturn_2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-11 19:46:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > I don't know if it is the RIGHT fix, but at least it works (tested with Yes, that's fine. Or one could just disable th

[Bug fortran/46952] [OOP] Spurious "recursive call" error with type bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 12:15:40 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Feb 12 12:15:26 2013 New Revision: 195975 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195975 Log: 2013-02-12 Ja

[Bug fortran/46952] [OOP] Spurious "recursive call" error with type bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 13:31:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Do you understand why the test in gfc_match_return (file match.c) > > if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_OBS, "Al

[Bug fortran/55852] [4.6/4.7/4.8 regression] internal compiler error: in gfc_build_intrinsic_call, at fortran/expr.c:4647

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 14:44:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Should be fixed - for the the trunk only - since 2012-01-09 Ok, so can we close this guy? Or is there need for a backport?

[Bug fortran/56378] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] gfortran internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56378 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/56385] [OOP] ICE with allocatable function result in a procedure-pointer component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56385 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/56386] [F03] ICE with ASSOCIATE construct and an derived type array component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56386 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug fortran/56385] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE with allocatable function result in a procedure-pointer component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56385 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/56385] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE with allocatable function result in a procedure-pointer component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56385 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-21 12:26:54 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Thu Feb 21 12:26:44 2013 New Revision: 196202 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196202 Log: 2013-02-21 Ja

[Bug fortran/56385] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE with allocatable function result in a procedure-pointer component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56385 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 19:48:15 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Fri Feb 22 19:48:11 2013 New Revision: 196227 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196227 Log: 2013-02-22 Ja

[Bug fortran/56385] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE with allocatable function result in a procedure-pointer component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56385 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-23 14:40:57 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Sat Feb 23 14:40:49 2013 New Revision: 196237 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196237 Log: 2013-02-23 Ja

[Bug fortran/56385] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE with allocatable function result in a procedure-pointer component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56385 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/56440] Compiler crash for f90 with C-binded subroutine name, which is equals to module name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56440 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56471] Program crashes when allocating a derived type with an allocatable component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56471 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56596] Invalid read of size 4 gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56596 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-17 15:59:42 UTC --- The patches of comment 2 and comment 3 regtest cleanly.

[Bug fortran/55282] [OOP] openmp directive and classes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55282 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/52531] [OOP] Compilation fails with polymorphic dummy argument and OpenMP

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||valeryweber at hotmail

[Bug fortran/52531] [OOP] Compilation fails with polymorphic dummy argument and OpenMP

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-17 21:01:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > > The patches of comment 2 and comment 3 regtest cleanly. > > With the patches applied to a clean revision 196754 I have lot

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-17 22:37:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > > Oops, you're right. *Lots* of failures. Seems I looked at the wrong logfile > > :( > > AFAICT they come from

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-18 12:56:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > > Yes. I hope this variant should work better (regtesting now): > > It "works better", but still has regressi

[Bug fortran/56655] Associate construct with OpenMP triggers ICE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56655 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56655] [F03] ASSOCIATE construct with OpenMP triggers ICE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56655 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Associate construct with|[F03] ASSOCIATE

[Bug fortran/56691] [OOP] Allocatable array: wrong offset when passing to CLASS dummy

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56730] [Fortran 4.6, 4.7] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic array in allocate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56730 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56731] [4.7 Regression] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic array in select type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/56731] [4.7 Regression] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic array in select type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26 10:06:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I don't know the best way to resolve this PR: WONTFIX or FIXED? FIXED I would say (provided the behavior on trunk is ok).

[Bug fortran/56743] New: Namelist bug with comment and no blank

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743 Bug #: 56743 Summary: Namelist bug with comment and no blank Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/56744] New: [meta-bug] Namelist bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56744 Bug #: 56744 Summary: [meta-bug] Namelist bugs Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/56765] [OOP] compilation errors/ICE with unlimited polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/56765] [OOP] compilation errors/ICE with unlimited polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-29 21:30:03 UTC --- With this patch ... Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c === --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 196862

[Bug fortran/56744] [meta-bug] Namelist bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56744 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/56765] [OOP] compilation errors/ICE with unlimited polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-31 17:35:13 UTC --- Btw, this bug does not require unlimited polymorphism, but also shows up with normal ('limited'?) CLASS definitions: program t_limited implicit none

[Bug fortran/56731] [4.7 Regression] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic array in select type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE on (wrongly)|[4.7 Regression] ICE on

[Bug fortran/56731] [4.7 Regression] [OOP] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic array in select type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.7 Regression] ICE on |[4.7 Regression] [OOP

[Bug fortran/56500] [OOP] "IMPLICIT CLASS(...)" wrongly rejected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56500 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/56731] [4.7 Regression] [OOP] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic array in select type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-01 17:10:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Trunk gives: > > select type(an => carr%c) > 1 > Error: Component to the right of a p

[Bug fortran/56284] [OOP] ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56284 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/40881] [F03] warn for obsolescent features

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40881 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-03 07:53:11 UTC --- http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=197389 2013-04-03 Janus Weil PR fortran/56284 PR fortran/40881 * de

[Bug fortran/56814] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-03 08:25:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > The check is in interface.c's check_result_characteristics: > > /* Check PROCEDURE POINTER attribute. */ > i

[Bug fortran/56814] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug fortran/56814] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-03 09:41:12 UTC --- Unfortunately this patch produces one testsuite failure: > gfortran-4.9 recursive_interface_1.f90 recursive_interface_1.f90:16:0: internal compiler error:

[Bug fortran/40881] [F03] warn for obsolescent features

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40881 --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-04 19:23:26 UTC --- http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=197495 2013-04-04 Janus Weil PR fortran/40881 * match.c (gfc_match_return): Remove stan

[Bug fortran/40881] [F03] warn for obsolescent features

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40881 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW

[Bug fortran/56845] [OOP] _vptr not set to declared type for CLASS + SAVE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56845 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-04 20:15:07 UTC --- Huh, funny. I thought we were doing this already. Also there is a piece of code in gfc_trans_deferred_vars (trans-decl.c) which claims to do exactly this (AFAICS

[Bug fortran/56845] [OOP] _vptr not set to declared type for CLASS + SAVE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56845 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-04 21:01:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Also there is a piece of code in gfc_trans_deferred_vars (trans-decl.c) which > claims to do exactly this (AFAICS). No idea why it is

[Bug fortran/56845] [OOP] _vptr not set to declared type for CLASS + SAVE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56845 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/56261] [OOP] seg fault call procedure pointer on polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56261 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/56939] New: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [OOP] Derived type is being used before it is defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56939 Bug #: 56939 Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [OOP] Derived type is being used before it is defined Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 St

[Bug fortran/55959] [OOP] ICE in in gfc_simplify_expr, at fortran/expr.c:1920

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 19:10:29 UTC --- In 4.8 and trunk, there is an additional problem with the test case in comment 0, see PR 56939.

[Bug fortran/56939] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [OOP] Derived type is being used before it is defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56939 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 19:40:32 UTC --- Seems to be a module-loading problem. Backtrace for the error message: #0 gfc_use_derived (sym=0x1a1dc60) at /home/janus/gcc49/trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:1988 #1

[Bug fortran/56266] [OOP] ICE on invalid in gfc_match_varspec

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56266 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/55959] [OOP] ICE in in gfc_simplify_expr, at fortran/expr.c:1920

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/44978] extended derived types are resolved more than once

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-13 11:15:01 UTC --- Similar problems of multiple error messages occur also with non-extended types which have type-bound procedures. Reduced example from PR 55959 comment 4: module pdfs

[Bug fortran/56765] [OOP] compilation errors/ICE with polymorphic array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-13 12:31:42 UTC --- Note: The patch in comment 3 regtests cleanly.

[Bug fortran/56945] internal compiler error: in lhd_set_decl_assembler_name, at langhooks.c:158

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56945 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56968] [F03] Issue with a procedure defined with a generic name returning procedure pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/56968] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] Issue with a procedure defined with a generic name returning procedure pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[F03] Issue with a |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression

[Bug fortran/56968] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] Issue with a procedure defined with a generic name returning procedure pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-15 17:16:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Regtesting now ... Completed successfully. Will commit to trunk as obvious ...

[Bug fortran/56968] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] Issue with a procedure defined with a generic name returning procedure pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-15 18:35:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c > > =

[Bug fortran/56968] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] Issue with a procedure defined with a generic name returning procedure pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-16 08:50:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > > I think you should directly use > > > > if (rvalue->value.function.esym) > > s2 = rvalue->value.functi

[Bug fortran/56968] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] Issue with a procedure defined with a generic name returning procedure pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-16 19:14:33 UTC --- Fixed on trunk with: Author: janus Date: Tue Apr 16 19:07:34 2013 New Revision: 198008 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198008&root=gcc&view=rev Lo

[Bug fortran/56814] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-17 08:58:25 UTC --- Alternative patch: Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c === --- gcc/fortran/interface.c(revision

[Bug fortran/56814] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy procedure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-17 11:41:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Alternative patch: In contrast to the patch in comment #3, this one regtests cleanly ...

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >