https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE is fixed by:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.cc
index 9b497d6bdc6..605107b5168 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115315
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104130
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.3.1, 13.3.0
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103139
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.4.1, 12.3.1, 13.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115260
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.5.0
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 58302
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58302=edit
Partial patch
This change prevents the ICE and leads to a correct shape of the function
res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Natalie Perlin from comment #15)
> Quick update:
>
> Software stack and model build with gnu/13.3.0 was clear from all previous
> issues! So issue with the gnu/13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93635
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 86100, which changed state.
Bug 86100 Summary: Spurious error with -fcheck=bounds and allocatable class(*)
array components
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103368
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #8)
> I simply copied all the associated functions in trans-expr.cc from mainline
> and plonked them in 13-branch. That's why I said
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103368
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110415
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115193
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryan.mulhall at noaa dot gov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Natalie Perlin from comment #9)
> All rebuilt, gnu/14.1.0 with openmpi/4.1.6, revised configuration of the
> software stack (spack-stack). Still the same error with
> [-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Backporting to 13-branch requires backporting of r14-5931-gb247e917ff1332,
see pr110415.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110415
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115039
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Natalie Perlin from comment #6)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> > The traceback is essentially identical to that in pr114467.
> >
> > Can you please tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115107
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The traceback is essentially identical to that in pr114467.
Can you please try the 14-release like the other reporter, or the upcoming
13.3 release next week?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67740
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clange001 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106317
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115070
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Replacing the scalar argument 'obs' by something with rank > 0 avoids the ICE,
but then assumed-rank is not accepted with intent(out). Another bug...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115070
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115072
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Memory link with unlimited |Memory leak with unlimited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115039
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115039
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As reported in:
https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/real-and-imaginary-parts-of-complex-number/1113/18
an inquiry reference (%re, %im) is incorrectly reported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code fragment in comment#2 was added in r7-3760-g92c5266bbd5378.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The dump-fortran-original shows the following difference between 13 and 14:
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
code:
ASSIGN p:c 'abc'
- BLOCK
+ SELECT TYPE
symtree: '__tmp_CHARACTER_0_1'|| symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114859
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-April/060464.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58048|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #0)
> The following code fails for me with latest 14-branch/15-release candidate:
Oops, I meant: 14-release candidate/15-mainline after branching...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0, 11.4.1, 12.3.1
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following code fails for me with latest 14-branch/15-release candidate:
program p
implicit none
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 58056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58056=edit
Patch part 2.
This part fixes the array case. Needs further testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #11)
> It would be splendid if you would backport the patch. In the last week or
> so, I have built up quite a list of backports to do, which I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> > I get the same behavior at r13-8559 as 14-mainline. There seems to be
> > another co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114815
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102597
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.1, 12.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114781
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103471
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
program main
implicit complex(z)
z2%re = 1.
z2%im = 2.
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114467
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to thomas from comment #3)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> > Can you attached a self-contained reproducer?
> >
> > The traceback looks familiar. Ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95682
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.1, 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57931|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57937=edit
c_sizeof_8.f90
Here's a testcase derived from comment#0.
Feel free to adapt it to your meet your ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57354|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code in comment#0 compiles at r14-9893-gded646c91d2c0f
and gives the indicated results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114626
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another option is to not declare max_sum as parameter but as variable.
With
integer :: max_sum = 2 * max_ij ** 3
the code compiles almost instantly, but it has noticeable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106500
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> What is unclear to me: when is an expression interoperable?
> Or rather when is it *not*?
>
> (Note that the standard text has not essenti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106317
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.1, 12.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114626
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114474
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114618
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW: r12-5767 backports cleanly to 11-branch and regtests cleanly.
I could push it if there are no objections, so that we can finally close
this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.0, 13.2.1, 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104585
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #31 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just checked the various comments.
What's left:
- comment#2 : the testcase still fails. See also comment#7 about the invalid
partial initialization
- lack of diagnostics of overlapping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113363
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |REOPENED
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> The pointers to expr->symtree is NULL. This new patch catches your example.
It does, but behaves weird for some other cases. Try:
program main
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 113363, which changed state.
Bug 113363 Summary: ICE on ASSOCIATE and unlimited polymorphic function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113363
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113363
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103368
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113956
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
> > I can see why the assert is there but it is manifestly wrong for both the
> > assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99852
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99852
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 104848 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103707
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113799
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|ICE in record_reference
1 - 100 of 2560 matches
Mail list logo
