http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 19:52:53 UTC ---
Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time test, I think the best
solution would be to just convert it to "dg-do link":
Index: cla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-06 12:19:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time test, I think the best
> > solution would be to just convert it to "dg-do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 10:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Thus, the patch seems to work.
Ok, thanks for checking. I'll commit as obvious the change to "dg-do link" for
class_45 and class_4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 13:31:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Sep 7 13:31:04 2011
New Revision: 178635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178635
Log:
2011-09-07 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48095
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 22:20:50 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Sep 7 22:20:47 2011
New Revision: 178665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178665
Log:
2011-09-07 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48095
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37297
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47710
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domob at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47710
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-10 08:47:40 UTC ---
Another example test case (from PR37297):
MODULE m
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE t
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE, PASS :: proc1
PROCEDURE, NOPASS :: proc2
GENERIC :: gen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Shape mismatch check|[F95] Shape mismatch check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-10 11:26:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> "12.3.1 Characteristics of procedures
> The characteristics of a procedure are the classification of the procedure as a
> function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-10 11:30:21 UTC ---
Relevant F08 standard quote:
4.5.7.3 Type-bound procedure overriding
1 If a specific type-bound procedure specified in a type definition has the same
binding name as a type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37222
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Summary|Checks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 10:06:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Combining the three statements above, F08 clearly demands that the *shape* of
> the argument should be the same (meaning that the bounds them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:12:30 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 11 20:12:24 2011
New Revision: 178767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178767
Log:
2011-09-11 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:12:31 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 11 20:12:24 2011
New Revision: 178767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178767
Log:
2011-09-11 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Bug #: 50360
Summary: [cleanup] use an ENUM for the return values of
gfc_dep_compare_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37222
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:43:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This PR can be used to track some of the missing checks:
> * ALLOCATABLE/POINTER
> * string length
> * ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:48:40 UTC ---
r178767 implements a check to reject the original c.l.f. test case as well as
the one in comment #0.
At this point I would tend to say that comment #2 is valid, but we also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50362
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 14:02:53 UTC ---
Or better:
Index: gcc/fortran/symbol.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/symbol.c(revision 178778)
+++ gcc/fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 18:19:18 UTC ---
The patch in comment #4 regtests cleanly. Will commit as obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 18:37:41 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Sep 13 18:37:33 2011
New Revision: 178829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178829
Log:
2011-09-13 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-14 13:49:24 UTC ---
Hi Dominique,
> I am worried about your fix as it seems to break at least the original tests
> of
> pr41656 and pr41685:
thanks for noticing. But, from a quick
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-14 13:49:04 UTC ---
Hi Dominique,
> I am worried about your fix as it seems to break at least the original tests
> of
> pr41656 and pr41685:
thanks for noticing. But, from a quick
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 17:48:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 15 17:48:27 2011
New Revision: 178889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178889
Log:
2011-09-15 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 17:48:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 15 17:48:27 2011
New Revision: 178889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178889
Log:
2011-09-15 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:47:21 UTC ---
Also we need to check for the following F08 constraints:
"12.5.2.9 Actual arguments associated with dummy procedure entities
If the interface of a dummy procedu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 20:48:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I created it.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please
elaborate?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-16 07:30:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> You asked where do I get such an enormous amount of invalid fortran code.
> Probably I was too terse in my answer.
Ok, I get it.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 10:54:53 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Sep 17 10:54:50 2011
New Revision: 178928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178928
Log:
2011-09-17 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 15:00:33 UTC ---
Contrary to what I suggested in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-09/msg00083.html
this problem does not seem to be specific to SUBROUTINEs. It also happens when
making
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:44:25 UTC ---
I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early
(already when parsing the corresponding source line, where 'aproc' is not known
yet).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:53:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early
Btw, there was a similar problem recently (PR 49112 comment 6), wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-22 09:32:14 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 22 09:32:11 2011
New Revision: 179080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179080
Log:
2011-09-22 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #53 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-22 10:51:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #52)
> Created attachment 25336 [details]
> remove ranlib special casing from the darwin port
>
> [...]
>
> I would appreciate some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50515
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-26 08:09:09 UTC ---
Unfortunately, gfortran also does not reject it if the types actually differ:
program main
type t
integer :: i
end type
type u
real :: r
end type
type(u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-26 08:45:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Could you explain why you assume that this is invalid? I would say it is valid
> at least in F95, see Fortran 95 standard, chapter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-26 09:01:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Could you explain why you assume that this is invalid? I would say it is valid
> at least in F95, see Fortran 95 standard, chapter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50515
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-26 20:05:57 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Sep 26 20:05:43 2011
New Revision: 179213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179213
Log:
2011-09-26 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-26 20:05:58 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Sep 26 20:05:43 2011
New Revision: 179213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179213
Log:
2011-09-26 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50515
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50517
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 11:14:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This one is trivial:
Unfortunately this causes one testsuite regression:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_derived_4.f90 -O0 (test for excess err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:28:59 UTC ---
The patch regtests cleanly. I'm going to commit as obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:40:30 UTC ---
This patch causes one testsuite failure on elemental_args_check_2.f90, due to a
slightly changed error message.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-29 11:23:52 UTC ---
Here is a better version which is regression-free:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-29 11:57:40 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 29 11:57:35 2011
New Revision: 179345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179345
Log:
2011-09-29 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-29 11:57:40 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 29 11:57:35 2011
New Revision: 179345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179345
Log:
2011-09-29 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-29 12:14:03 UTC ---
Comment #0 is fixed with r179345.
I noticed that in 'resolve_formal_arglist' there are two separate checks for
procedure dummies in elemental procedures (for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.2 |---
--- Comment #8 from janus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-29 16:41:13 UTC ---
Here's a link to a c.l.f. thread where I asked about this:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ae6a44043a3b1a95
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-01 10:03:33 UTC ---
Backtrace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x004e1f73 in get_expr_storage_size (e=0x1bc4940) at
/home/jweil/gcc47/trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-01 10:24:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 4.5 gives a segmentation fault with -fwhole-file (4.4 does not accept this
> option).
Well, then one can even argue that it's a regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-01 11:24:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> IIRC, -fwhole-file is default since 4.6, right? However, if this is true, it
> is
> not documented in the manual:
>
> htt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-01 11:41:49 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Oct 1 11:41:41 2011
New Revision: 179413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179413
Log:
2011-10-01 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-01 12:13:04 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk with r179413. Backport to 4.6 (and 4.5?) pending ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 18:37:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Oct 4 18:37:13 2011
New Revision: 179520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179520
Log:
2011-10-04 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 18:52:37 UTC ---
r179520 should pretty much fix the shape checking for dummy arguments.
Related ToDos:
1) check shape of dummy function results (in 'gfc_compare_interfaces')
2) c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 20:44:14 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Oct 4 20:44:10 2011
New Revision: 179524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179524
Log:
2011-10-04 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 20:45:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> This ICEs also on the 4.6 branch. Could you please apply it there too?
Sure thing. Committed as r179524.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-05 20:06:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Related ToDos:
> 1) check shape of dummy function results (in 'gfc_compare_interfaces')
> 2) check shape of function results w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-05 21:42:33 UTC ---
Here's an attempt to fix it:
Index: module.c
===
--- module.c(revision 179566)
+++ module.c(wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-06 10:58:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_free_namespace, at
> > fortran/symbol.c:3259
>
> That line is:
>
> g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-06 21:27:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> However, with this patch, the test case gives me a different error:
>
> internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_component_ref, at
> f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 14:40:21 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Oct 7 14:40:14 2011
New Revision: 179660
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179660
Log:
2011-10-07 Janus Weil
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 14:42:15 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk with r179660.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 18:45:43 UTC ---
Slight reduction of the original test case:
module m
integer :: arrSize
end module
program p
implicit none
procedure(Proc) :: Proc_Get
contains
function Proc
801 - 900 of 3414 matches
Mail list logo
