http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53259
Bug #: 53259
Summary: [OOP] virtual call to type bound procedure calls base,
not extension?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
Bug #: 50438
Summary: proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49271
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49627
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47720
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2011.07.24 19:21:52
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
19:21:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Works with -fno-realloc-lhs -- thus,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48864
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49138
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2011.07.24 19:05:43
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
19:05:43 UTC ---
Just a thought: did you try to pass '-E' (preprocess only) as well?
||2011.07.24 19:03:42
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
19:03:42 UTC ---
Any news here? Set to waiting, to be closed soon if no additional info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49501
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:56:57 UTC ---
No further feedback for six weeks. As-is, there's nothing gfortran developers
can do. Closing as invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46703
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:53:21 UTC ---
Any news here? May this report be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44352
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:51:30 UTC ---
Was this ever backported? Should it still be backported?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
--- Comment #21 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:49:19 UTC ---
One year down. Did anything happen here?
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #22 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:47:19 UTC ---
Closing according to comments #19 and #20.
||2011.07.24 18:43:02
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:43:02 UTC ---
Set to waiting. Close soon if no further information shows up.
||2011.07.24 18:41:44
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Franke 2011-07-24
18:41:44 UTC ---
Set to waiting. Close if no additional info shows up in a reasonable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Franke 2011-02-07
00:34:00 UTC ---
Jerry, good luck with that one - I'm pretty sure that this is at least
implicitly related to PR42189. Can of Pandoras's Worms ahead :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47196
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2011-01-07
12:44:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> c) Build libquadmath but no Fortran REAL(16) support
>If one wants to save a few KiB for Fortran but wants to us libquadmath,
>e.g, with C/C++
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47196
Summary: --disable-libquadmath breaks bootstrap in libgfortran
(quadmath_weak.h not found)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47195
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47195
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke 2011-01-06
21:42:56 UTC ---
Author: dfranke
Date: Thu Jan 6 21:42:53 2011
New Revision: 168554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168554
Log:
2011-01-06 Daniel Franke
PR fortran/47195
||2011.01.06 20:13:09
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33117
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46478
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46478
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke 2011-01-06
16:08:29 UTC ---
Author: dfranke
Date: Thu Jan 6 16:08:24 2011
New Revision: 168542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168542
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2011-01-06 Daniel Franke
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33117
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2011-01-06
16:08:28 UTC ---
Author: dfranke
Date: Thu Jan 6 16:08:24 2011
New Revision: 168542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168542
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2011-01-06 Daniel Franke
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke 2011-01-02
13:47:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Some related non-OOP examples:
[...]
> Are these examples actually valid or invalid? Can someone give the relevant
> quotes from the standard?
Lahey's onlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
Summary: [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE
and INTERFACE?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37744
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Franke 2010
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43179
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-30
02:39:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > > OK for trunk with the usual embellishments of ChangeLogs and testcase?
> > >
> > > Yes, if you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44232
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31059
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-29
15:22:47 UTC ---
*** Bug 34741 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-29
15:22:47 UTC ---
Same as the other.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 31059 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31059
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-29
15:22:44 UTC ---
*** Bug 32454 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-29
15:22:44 UTC ---
Same as the other.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 31059 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45619
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28004
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-29
14:52:48 UTC ---
Also related: PR45619.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34805
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2010.12.29 02:57:44
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-29
02:57:44 UTC ---
Small testcase with additional twist: double allocation of 'tt&#x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46478
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2010.12.28 23:37:54
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
23:37:54 UTC ---
Given Richard's comments and no testcase, I'm in doubt if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40850
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Franke 2010
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
22:42:19 UTC ---
The quoted clf post does not provide a complete testcase.
Closing as INVALID. Please reopen if you feel that this PR should stay alive.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40737
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640
--- Comment #19 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
22:30:10 UTC ---
Other potential dupes: PR40737, PR45128.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45128
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
21:49:39 UTC ---
Same as the other.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 39427 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #24 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
21:49:39 UTC ---
*** Bug 40824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20896
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Franke 2
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
18:27:08 UTC ---
Same as #33117.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 33117 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45086
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33117
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
18:27:08 UTC ---
*** Bug 46478 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27318
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27318
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45086
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||29670
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
18:23:33 UTC ---
Same as #27318.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 27318 ***
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
17:59:25 UTC ---
Tobias, anything left to do here or can this report be closed?
||2010.12.28 17:55:10
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
17:55:10 UTC ---
Anything new here or can this report be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #40 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
17:27:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Ok, I get it. Sorry about the misconception. Feel free to commit the patch in
> comment #36 (provided it regtests ok). Or should I take care of it?
Please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #38 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
12:22:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 22856
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22856
testcase, ICE with patch in comment #35
(In reply to comment #37)
> > I managed to get an ICE with
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
23:54:38 UTC ---
Added fmalq to list of missing functions in PR46416.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 46416 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46416
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46416
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
23:54:38 UTC ---
*** Bug 46402 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40581
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35612
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #36 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
22:18:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Yes, I think I know what's going on. One way to fix it is the following:
I managed to get an ICE with your version (sym == NULL), this seems to work
(not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47069
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47069
Summary: [OOP] undefined reference for virtual hook
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #34 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
14:27:36 UTC ---
With both testcases, tracing the search in module.c(mio_component_ref), I get:
mio_component_ref: looking for 'n', current: '_data'
mio_component_ref: looking for 'n', current: '_vptr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45988
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|f951.exe: internal compiler |[4.4/4.5] internal compiler
|error: Segmentation fault |error
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:50:35 UTC ---
Set to WAITING. If nobody picks this up in a while, this PR
||2010.12.27 00:33:08
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:33:08 UTC ---
Tobias, anything left here or can this report be closed?
||2010.12.27 00:30:19
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:30:19 UTC ---
Tobias, is there anything left or can this report be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46405
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
||2010.12.27 00:23:27
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:23:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Maybe yet another of x86's extra
||2010.12.27 00:15:55
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:15:55 UTC ---
Jakub, is there anything left here or can this report be closed?
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:09:46 UTC ---
Closing. Please see comments #1 to #4 in PR46917 for further details.
Please reopen if you feel that this PR should live on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46917
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.a.richmond at nasa
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:05:53 UTC ---
Closing as INVALID due to comments #1 to #4.
Please reopen if you feel that this PR should live on.
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.6.0
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-27
00:02:21 UTC ---
Closing.
||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-26
23:55:46 UTC ---
The last request for F was closed as WONTFIX well over two years ago (after
sitting there for 4 years without anyone bothering
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18584
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thenlich at users dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46405
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
92 matches
Mail list logo
