th the effort to determine how to remove the extra (void *)?
[PATCH] Fortran : Two further previously missed ICEs PR53298
There were 3 ICEs with different call stacks in the comments of this
PR. A previous commit fixed only one of those ICEs.
The ICEs fixed here are in trans-array.c and trans-ex
On 16/09/2020 08:02, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Hi Mark,
a few remarks:
[...]
[PATCH] Fortran : Two further previously missed ICEs PR53298
There were 3 ICEs with different call stacks in the comments of this
PR. A previous commit fixed only one of those ICEs.
The ICEs fixed here are in
Hi Mark,
a few remarks:
[...]
> [PATCH] Fortran : Two further previously missed ICEs PR53298
>
> There were 3 ICEs with different call stacks in the comments of this
> PR. A previous commit fixed only one of those ICEs.
>
> The ICEs fixed here are in trans-array.c and tran
so I don't know whether data is declared void * (I expect it is).
Is it worth the effort to determine how to remove the extra (void *)?
[PATCH] Fortran : Two further previously missed ICEs PR53298
There were 3 ICEs with different call stacks in the comments of this
PR. A previous commit f
d * (I expect it is).
Is it worth the effort to determine how to remove the extra (void *)?
[PATCH] Fortran : Two further previously missed ICEs PR53298
There were 3 ICEs with different call stacks in the comments of this
PR. A previous commit fixed only one of those ICEs.
The ICEs fixed h
