[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 #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-17 16:15:06 UTC --- Fixed on trunk with: Author: janus Date: Wed Apr 17 16:13:07 2013 New Revision: 198032 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198032&root=gcc&view=rev Lo

[Bug fortran/45424] [F2008] Add IS_CONTIGUOUS intrinsic

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45424 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/57019] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Compiler crashes (and make wrong assignments) at some combinations of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57019 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug fortran/57019] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Compiler crashes (and make wrong assignments) at some combinations of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57019 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at redhat dot com

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-21 10:19:17 UTC --- Draft patch which gets rid of the warnings for the test case: Index: gcc/fortran/check.c

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-21 13:42:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > + > > + if (source->expr_type == EXPR_ARRAY || source->rank > 0) &

[Bug fortran/57019] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Compiler crashes (and make wrong assignments) at some combinations of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57019 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-21 15:23:49 UTC --- I can confirm a runtime segfault (invalid memory reference) on comment 4 with 4.7, 4.8 and trunk. With 4.3 one does not get a segfault, but the output is

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-21 21:25:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > I have an extended patch which fixes both this one and the original test > > case > >

[Bug fortran/53685] surprising warns about transfer with explicit character range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-22 19:23:37 UTC --- Comment 7 is fixed on 4.9 trunk with the following commit: Author: janus Date: Mon Apr 22 19:14:22 2013 New Revision: 198155 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-22 19:25:38 UTC --- Fixed on 4.9 trunk with the following commit: Author: janus Date: Mon Apr 22 19:14:22 2013 New Revision: 198155 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198155&

[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|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[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 #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-26 19:31:41 UTC --- Fixed on the 4.8 branch with: Author: janus Date: Fri Apr 26 19:20:55 2013 New Revision: 198345 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198345&root=gcc&

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-26 19:35:31 UTC --- Fixed on the 4.8 branch with: Author: janus Date: Fri Apr 26 19:20:55 2013 New Revision: 198345 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198345&root=gcc&

[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 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57022] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/53685] surprising warns about transfer with explicit character range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/50438] [F03] proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/50438] [F03] proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-27 15:31:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > This is also sufficient to remove the error. Regtesting now ... The patch in comment 5 regtests cleanly. However, it only fixes commen

[Bug fortran/57096] Polymorphic allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-28 07:48:27 UTC --- Created attachment 29959 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29959 reduced test case Confirmed with current trunk. It is not related

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-28 13:19:03 UTC --- The simplest test case I found contains two files: ModA.f03: - module ModA implicit none integer, allocatable :: gA end module ModA test.f03

[Bug fortran/34004] Accepts invalid: Ambigiuous interface with subroutine.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34004 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/39290] Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/39290] Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-29 14:53:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > BTW: When updating this, one can also implement the new Fortran 2008 feature: > "ALLOCATABLE and POINTER attributes are used

[Bug fortran/57116] [OOP] ICE for pointer assignment inside SELECT TYPE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57116 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/57117] [OOP] ICE for sourced allocation of a polymorphic entity using TRANSPOSE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-30 21:10:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Removing the -std=f2003 or putting the module into the same file as the > subroutine makes the auto-deallocation (and nullification) g

[Bug fortran/54208] compilation error for ubound construct in PARAMETER statements

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/54208] compilation error for ubound construct in PARAMETER statements

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-10 08:31:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Anyway, the following patchlet gets rid of the error, but may possibly > introduce regressions (unchecked): It fails with an

[Bug fortran/54243] [OOP] ICE (segfault) in gfc_type_compatible for invalid BT_CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo

[Bug fortran/54243] [OOP] ICE (segfault) in gfc_type_compatible for invalid BT_CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-14 21:27:25 UTC --- The patch in comment 2 regresses on typebound_operator_11.f90, which can be fixed by the following: Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c

[Bug fortran/54270] New: [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with -Wunused-function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270 Bug #: 54270 Summary: [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with -Wunused-function Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/54224] [4.8 Regression] Bogus -Wunused-function warning with static function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo

[Bug fortran/54243] [OOP] ICE (segfault) in gfc_type_compatible for invalid BT_CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:15 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012 New Revision: 190420 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190420 Log: 2012-08-15 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:13 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012 New Revision: 190420 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190420 Log: 2012-08-15 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54243] [OOP] ICE (segfault) in gfc_type_compatible for invalid BT_CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/54285] New: [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285 Bug #: 54285 Summary: [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug fortran/54286] New: [4.8 Regression] Accepts invalid proc-pointer assignments involving proc-ptr function result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54286 Bug #: 54286 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Accepts invalid proc-pointer assignments involving proc-ptr function result Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug fortran/54285] [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-16 20:33:22 UTC --- The following patch fixes the error message in comment 0: Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c === --- gcc/fortran

[Bug fortran/54285] [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54285] [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-17 11:00:26 UTC --- The combined patches of comment 1 and 2 regtest cleanly.

[Bug fortran/54195] [4.8 Regression][OOP] IMPORT fails with GENERIC TBP: "is already present in the interface"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54195 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-20 09:45:15 UTC --- A similar test case (also a regression) was reported by Andrew Benson at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-08/msg00101.html: module gn implicit none type :: nc

[Bug fortran/54435] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/54435] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 14:03:21 UTC --- This kills the ICE and gets us back at least to the 4.6 behavior (see comment #3): Index: gcc/fortran/match.c

[Bug fortran/54435] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54435] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo

[Bug fortran/54443] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Segmentation Fault when Compiling for code using Fortran Polymorphic Entities

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54443] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Segmentation Fault when Compiling for code using Fortran Polymorphic Entities

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo

[Bug fortran/54443] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Segmentation Fault when Compiling for code using Fortran Polymorphic Entities

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-04 08:03:16 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Sep 4 08:03:09 2012 New Revision: 190910 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190910 Log: 2012-09-04 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-04 08:03:18 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Sep 4 08:03:09 2012 New Revision: 190910 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190910 Log: 2012-09-04 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54522] Using "g77 -O -fno-automatic", reassignment of a variable in an if statement in a function triggers a compiler bug.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54522 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/54443] [4.7 Regression] Segmentation Fault when Compiling for code using Fortran Polymorphic Entities

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-10 12:10:27 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Mon Sep 10 12:10:12 2012 New Revision: 191135 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191135 Log: 2012-09-10 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54435] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-04 08:03:14 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Sep 4 08:03:09 2012 New Revision: 190910 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190910 Log: 2012-09-04 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54435] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/54443] [4.7 Regression] Segmentation Fault when Compiling for code using Fortran Polymorphic Entities

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/53718] [4.7/4.8 regression] [OOP] gfortran generates asm label twice in the same output file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718 --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11 15:57:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > My suspicious is that one of Richard's commits in May fixed the issue. In turn > that probably means that backing out the patch for P

[Bug fortran/54387] [F03] Wrongly accepts non-proc result variable on the RHS of a proc-pointer assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54387 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54224] [4.8 Regression] Bogus -Wunused-function warning with static function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |fortran --- Comment #7 from

[Bug fortran/54224] [4.8 Regression] Bogus -Wunused-function warning with static function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-15 18:26:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > > Here is a patch which should set TREE_USED for all procedure calls: > > Does it still allow to optimize unused PRIVATE module pro

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-15 18:46:06 UTC --- Note: The same error appears also for a non-typebound generic interface: module a_mod type :: a end type interface ass procedure :: a_ass, a_ass_sv end

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-15 20:05:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Note: The same error appears also for a non-typebound generic interface: ... also if the second argument 'in' is removed from bo

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-15 21:53:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Regtesting now ... ... finished without failures.

[Bug fortran/54387] [F03] Wrongly accepts non-proc result variable on the RHS of a proc-pointer assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54387 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-16 20:12:30 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Sun Sep 16 20:12:21 2012 New Revision: 191364 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191364 Log: 2012-09-16 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54387] [F03] Wrongly accepts non-proc result variable on the RHS of a proc-pointer assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54387 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-16 20:49:24 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Sun Sep 16 20:49:20 2012 New Revision: 191365 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191365 Log: 2012-09-16 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-16 21:07:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > With the patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-09/msg00051.html, the > tests in comments #0 and #1 fails with > > pr5459

[Bug fortran/54603] [F03] Wrong code with structure constructor for proc-pointer components

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54603 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/54603] [F03] Wrong code with structure constructor for proc-pointer components

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54603 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-16 21:21:56 UTC --- Loosely related: PR 50438.

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-16 21:38:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > The constraint is (F2008): > > C468 (R450) If generic-spec is not generic-name, each of its specific bindings > shall have a passed-

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-16 22:04:30 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Sun Sep 16 22:04:26 2012 New Revision: 191366 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191366 Log: 2012-09-16 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54594] [OOP] Type-bound ASSIGNMENTs (elemental + array version) rejected as ambiguous

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54594 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/54285] [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17 12:50:40 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Mon Sep 17 12:50:34 2012 New Revision: 191383 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191383 Log: 2012-09-17 Janus Weil PR

[Bug fortran/54285] [F03] Calling a PPC with proc-ptr result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/54667] New: [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 Bug #: 54667 Summary: [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:39:44 UTC --- The dump for comment 0 shows (with -fdump-tree-original): MAIN__ () { void * cself; struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p self; &self = (struct __class_MAIN___

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:53:51 UTC --- The question is if it is really valid. At first sight both F03 and F08 only specify that FPTR, i.e. the second argument to C_F_POINTER, shall be a pointer with INTENT

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 10:32:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Andrew, have you tried your test case with any other compilers? ifort 12.1 and Oracle Studio 12.3 seem to accept the test case with

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 13:18:31 UTC --- Moreover there is a typo in the documentation of C_F_POINTER: Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 19:02:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3: > > CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT (IN) argument. Its value >

[Bug fortran/54107] [4.8 Regression] Memory hog with abstract interface

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 22:29:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I would assume that this is invalid, since the declaration of > > compute_routine's >

[Bug fortran/54730] New: ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1066

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730 Bug #: 54730 Summary: ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1066 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRM

[Bug fortran/54730] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1066

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-28 13:11:16 UTC --- Note that the error goes away when replacing the generic intrinsic REAL by a specific one, e.g. FLOAT: implicit none intrinsic :: float real :: vec(1:2

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-30 16:36:09 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Sun Sep 30 16:36:02 2012 New Revision: 191870 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191870 Log: 2012-09-30 Ja

[Bug fortran/54667] [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/54767] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Incorrect code generated with "-O2 -fcheck=bounds"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/54778] [OOP] an ICE on invalid OO code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54778 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/54778] [OOP] an ICE on invalid OO code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54778 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-02 19:00:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Regtesting now ... Finished successfully. Will commit as obvious.

[Bug fortran/54778] [OOP] an ICE on invalid OO code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54778 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-02 19:31:40 UTC --- Btw, here is a slightly simpler version of the test case with the same symptoms: implicit none type :: arr_t real :: at end type type(arr_t) :: this

[Bug fortran/54778] [OOP] an ICE on invalid OO code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54778 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-02 21:02:20 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Oct 2 21:02:16 2012 New Revision: 192005 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192005 Log: 2012-10-02 Ja

[Bug fortran/54778] [OOP] an ICE on invalid OO code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54778 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/54784] [OOP] allocation of extended types with polymorphic allocatable members

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/54784] [OOP] allocation of extended types with polymorphic allocatable members

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-02 22:35:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > So there is actually two different bugs Or the two different errors you are seeing are really due to the same underlying problem. I&#x

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >