[Bug fortran/95979] [10/11 Regression] ICE in get_kind, at fortran/simplify.c:129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/97272] Wrong answer from MAXLOC with character arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/92422] [9 Regression] Warning with character and optimisation flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING Known to work|

[Bug fortran/97408] Handle ac-do-variable KIND argument to intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW

[Bug fortran/97408] New: Diagnose non-constant KIND argument to intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408 Bug ID: 97408 Summary: Diagnose non-constant KIND argument to intrinsics Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/97408] Diagnose non-constant KIND argument to intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-13

[Bug fortran/95644] [F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|IEEE_FMA is missing from|[F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing

[Bug fortran/95979] [10/11 Regression] ICE in get_kind, at fortran/simplify.c:129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #3) > Maybe the issue is related to PR87711, where the optional KIND argument > causes havoc with the elementalness of an intrinsic. (There it is LEN_TRIM).

[Bug fortran/97272] Wrong answer from MAXLOC with character arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bill Long from comment #5) > The original intent of adding the KIND argument was because some > implementations used a 32-bit integer for the result, and it is possible for > the

[Bug fortran/82721] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Error message with corrupted text, sometimes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82721 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97039] -fbounds-check misses violation with slice of array but not an element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Last

[Bug libfortran/97063] [ MATMUL intrinsic] The value of result is wrong when vector (step size is negative) * matrix

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-October/055169.html

[Bug libfortran/97063] [ MATMUL intrinsic] The value of result is wrong when vector (step size is negative) * matrix

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Please see PR96983 for the fallout. Note that my bandaid fix was rejected in favor of a "real solution" for powerpc*. See the other PR and the Fortran ML for background.

[Bug fortran/97491] Wrong restriction for VALUE arguments of pure procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97272] Wrong answer from MAXLOC with character arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Untested fix: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c index 3b3bd8629cd..9e9898c2bbf 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c +++

[Bug fortran/97272] Wrong answer from MAXLOC with character arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/97272] Wrong answer from MAXLOC with character arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/95979] [10/11 Regression] ICE in get_kind, at fortran/simplify.c:129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/97592] Incorrectly set pointer remapping with array pointer argument to CONTIGUOUS dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97491] Wrong restriction for VALUE arguments of pure procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/97491] Wrong restriction for VALUE arguments of pure procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c index a210f9aad43..096108f4317 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c @@ -16476,6 +16507,7 @@

[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97491] Wrong restriction for VALUE arguments of pure procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Submitted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-October/055235.html

[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/30802] out of bounds error array I/O not picked up with -fbounds-check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30802 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/97063] [ MATMUL intrinsic] The value of result is wrong when vector (step size is negative) * matrix

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/97547] How to fix problem causing warning?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97547 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |MOVED CC|

[Bug fortran/97571] long parsing phase for simple array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/98445] Bogus error: derived type used as an actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98445 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-12-26

[Bug fortran/98454] Apparent wrong initialization in function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-12-27

[Bug fortran/85877] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2449

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85877 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Digging some more, it appears that the logic in resolve.c is incomplete. There is some inconsistency between what is dealt with in resolve_symbol and in resolve_fl_procedure. resolve_symbol:

[Bug fortran/98454] Apparent wrong initialization in function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- According to the tree-dump, adding a print *, res% unit to the function body invokes the implicit initializer, while the line res = t() actually invokes the initializer effectively twice!

[Bug fortran/98445] Bogus error: derived type used as an actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98445 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug fortran/98454] Apparent wrong initialization in function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #4) > Should be closed as invalid as the original code contains a number > of issues caused by invalid code. Steve, stop it! My reduced testcase shows that there

[Bug fortran/92736] [9 Regression] Error when using a variable from a module in a submodule and its parent module.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/88356] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with -Werror in reduce_binary_ac, at fortran/arith.c:1318 (and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88356 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug fortran/89891] [meta-bug] Accessing memory in rejected statements or expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891 Bug 89891 depends on bug 78746, which changed state. Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/78746] charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug other/86656] [meta-bug] Issues found with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656 Bug 86656 depends on bug 78746, which changed state. Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/89661] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_61.f90 -O (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/89891] [meta-bug] Accessing memory in rejected statements or expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891 Bug 89891 depends on bug 89661, which changed state. Bug 89661 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_61.f90 -O (internal compiler error) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/60576] [8/9/10/11 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|WAITING CC|

[Bug fortran/98017] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Suspected regression (relative to 7.5) using PACK in iolist since r8-4151-g6c6bde30706c29ff

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98017 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/97977] Fortran deferred length strings incompatible with OMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97977 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||11.0

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/98129] Failure on reading big chunk of /dev/urandom

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/98129] Failure on reading big chunk of /dev/urandom

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #9 from

[Bug libfortran/98129] Failure on reading big chunk of /dev/urandom

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 49687 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49687=edit Untested patch (proof of concept) Here's a possible patch that retries after short reads. Not regtested.

[Bug fortran/95342] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_subroutine, at fortran/decl.c:7913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95342 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug libfortran/98129] Failure on reading big chunk of /dev/urandom

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10) > Seems like that, if nbyte <= MAX_CHUNK, we do not take account of the > possibility of a short read. Yes, that seems to be the better/right place.

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The case program p print *, +[ real :: +(1) ] end is solved by e.g. diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.c b/gcc/fortran/arith.c index c4c1041afdf..b2fbeddeb49 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.c +++

[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/95342] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_subroutine, at fortran/decl.c:7913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95342 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug fortran/91300] Wrong runtime error message with allocate and errmsg=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91300 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Currently the only generated STAT code is 5014 for LIBERROR_ALLOCATION. This is ambiguous. Shall we add another enum value to libgfortran_error_codes, such as LIBERROR_VIRTUAL_MEMORY,

[Bug fortran/98017] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Suspected regression (relative to 7.5) using PACK in iolist since r8-4151-g6c6bde30706c29ff

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98017 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Further reduced variant: program p implicit none character(*), parameter :: exprs(1) = ['abc()'] print *, len (pack ( exprs , exprs(:)(:1) =='a')) print *, len (pack

[Bug fortran/98017] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Suspected regression (relative to 7.5) using PACK in iolist since r8-4151-g6c6bde30706c29ff

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98017 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/98017] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Suspected regression (relative to 7.5) using PACK in iolist since r8-4151-g6c6bde30706c29ff

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98017 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-November/055367.html

[Bug fortran/98023] ICE: free_expr0(): Bad expr type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98023 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch in comment#1 does not work for me on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. In decl.c: 6242cleanup: 6243 if (saved_kind_expr) 6244gfc_free_expr (saved_kind_expr); 6245 if

[Bug fortran/97571] long parsing phase for simple array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2) > > So the new compiler does compile-time simplification already at -O0, > > while older versions maybe not. > > Is this expected? Depends.

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug fortran/98307] Dependency check fails when using "allocatable" instead of "pointer" (forall_3.f90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98307 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/93340] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in check_constant_initializer, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93340 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/98433] double free detected in tcache 2, after merge of structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug fortran/93685] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_constructor_append_expr, at fortran/constructor.c:135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug fortran/95372] ICE in find_array_section, at fortran/expr.c:1687

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95372 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Playing around with the above patches, I found that the following now gets rejected instead of an ICE: program p type t integer :: a = 1 end type t type(t), parameter :: z(3) = t()

[Bug fortran/98284] ICE in get_array_index

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98284 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/98284] ICE in get_array_index

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98284 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/98307] Dependency check fails when using "allocatable" instead of "pointer" (forall_3.f90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98307 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/98307] Dependency check fails when using "allocatable" instead of "pointer" (forall_3.f90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98307 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'm regtesting the following patch candidate: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c index adc6b8fefb5..e35b2f9ed34 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c +++

[Bug fortran/98307] use "allocatable" instead of "pointer" (forall_3.f90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98307 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/85877] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2449

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85877 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/49278] ICE (segfault) when combining DATA with default initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/49278] ICE (segfault) when combining DATA with default initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 --- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The -fdump-fortran-original of the last example in comment#21 contains symtree: 'z' || symbol: 'z' type spec : (DERIVED t) attributes: (VARIABLE IMPLICIT-SAVE

[Bug fortran/49278] ICE (segfault) when combining DATA with default initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 --- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #24) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #21) > Looks like the patch from comment #2 that I posted 9 years ago. LoL. > Bug must not hit real code too often as no

[Bug fortran/49278] ICE (segfault) when combining DATA with default initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 --- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #23) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #21) > > There's also valid code that ICEs, and invalid code that is silently > > accepted. > > > > Invalid code: > > > >

[Bug fortran/93337] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_dt_upper_string, at fortran/module.c:441

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The valgrind invalid read is possibly an issue with error recovery when handling the assignment. Modifying the testcase: program p type t character(:), allocatable :: a end type t

[Bug fortran/95372] ICE in find_array_section, at fortran/expr.c:1687

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95372 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/98263] valgrind error in gfc_find_derived_vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98263 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93685] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_constructor_append_expr, at fortran/constructor.c:135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- A first attempt to fix the character / non-character issue seem to require a replacement of the following hunk from commit eb401400f59e4d1f28bbdc788c3234e0968081d7 Author: Andre Vehreschild

[Bug fortran/93685] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_constructor_append_expr, at fortran/constructor.c:135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following seems to do the latter job: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c index bfe08be2a94..f66afab85d1 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c +++

[Bug fortran/93685] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_constructor_append_expr, at fortran/constructor.c:135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/97768] [10/11 Regression] 32-bit f951 ICE on code from OpenMolcas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97768 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/82314] internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6972

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The ICE in comment#0 vanishes when one replaces integer,parameter::iarray(merge(2,3,.true.)) = 1 with integer,parameter::iarray(merge(2,3,.true.)) = [ 1, 1 ]

[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97799] Passing CHARACTER*(*) var(*) through ENTRY causes segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97799 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I couldn't find any current 11-master, 10-, 9- and 8-branch version that fails on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, under valgrind, and with -m32 and -m64. So it looks very likely that Dominique is right that

[Bug libfortran/48958] Add runtime diagnostics for SIZE intrinsic function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48958 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/48958] Add runtime diagnostics for SIZE intrinsic function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48958 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > Reverting the following snippet from my fix attempt for pr91651: That snippet is necessary for the scalarizer during simplification. The original ICE is

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > Elemental actual arguments are some of those arrays involved. > Obviously one should not remove some of them in the middle of code > generation. > It

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug fortran/97320] False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop" in a protecting if block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/94978] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Bogus warning "Array reference at (1) out of bounds in loop beginning at (2)"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94978 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trnka at scm dot com ---

[Bug fortran/97491] Wrong restriction for VALUE arguments of pure procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/93678] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE with TRANSFER and typebound procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Another data point: comparing the -fdump-fortran-original of res = b_unpackbytes (me) ! ok vs. res = me% unpackbytes () ! ICE I see: ASSIGN b_unpackint:res(FULL)

[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >