Le 23/05/2024 à 21:15, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
On 5/23/24 09:49, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 13/05/2024 à 09:25, Mikael Morin a écrit :
Le 10/05/2024 à 21:56, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Am 10.05.24 um 21:48 schrieb Harald Anlauf:
Hi Mikael,
Am 10.05.24 um 11:45 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Le 09/05/2024 à 22:30, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
I'll stop here...
Thanks. Go figure, I have no problem reproducing today.
It's PR99798 (and there is even a patch for it).
this patch has rotten a bit: the type of gfc_reluease_symbol
has changed to bool, this can be fixed.
Unfortunately, applying the patch does not remove the ICEs here...
Oops, I take that back! There was an error on my side applying the
patch; and now it does fix the ICEs after correcting that hickup....
Now the PR99798 patch is ready to be pushed, but I won't be available
for a few days. We can finish our discussion on this topic afterwards.
Hello,
I'm coming back to this.
I think either one of Steve's patch or your variant in the PR is a
better fix for the ICE as a first step; they seem less fragile at least.
Then we can look at a possible reordering of conflict checks as with the
patch you originally submitted in this thread.
like the attached variant?
Yes. The churn in the testsuite is actually not that bad.
OK for master, thanks for the patch.
I wouldn't push for backporting, but if you feel like doing it, it seems
safe enough (depending on my own backport for PR99798 of course).
Regarding the conflict check reordering, I'm tempted to just drop it at
this point, or do you think it remains worth it?
