https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91656
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91671
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91671
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Running the gfortran testsuite on today's trunk I see:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/direct_io_10.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also I have just looked into the Fortran 2018 standard, and I don't think the
situation has changed there:
R1518 initial-proc-target is procedure-name
C1519 (R1518) The procedure-name shall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the test case is actually invalid (at least wrt Fortran 2008), see PR
85537 comment 18 (and 20).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> What is allocate supposed to do if the array and the mold are not
> conformable?
AFAICS the mold expr is normally only used for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84382
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> How do you propose to enforce a certain standard and allow
> GNU extensions? For example, -std=gnu2003 would enforce
> Fortran 2003, but allow GNU e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84382
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from janus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41650
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82971
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71796
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65359
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29670
Bug 29670 depends on bug 62176, which changed state.
Bug 62176 Summary: [OOP] Inconsistent resolution of GENERIC interface
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62176
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62176
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52994
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89866
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 85537, which changed state.
Bug 85537 Summary: [F08] Invalid memory reference at runtime when calling
subroutine through procedure pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Mar 27 22:40:22 2019
New Revision: 269980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269980=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 85537
2019-03-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/85537
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78377
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> This kind of PRs is a nightmare when sorting the bug list.
What do you mean by "this kind of PR"? And what is your problem with it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #18)
> C1220(R1217) The procedure-name shall be the name of a nonelemental external
> or module procedure, or a specific intrinsic function listed i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> As said, the testcase is invalid if it needs SAVE since that prolongs
> lifetime of the static chain over the duration of the contained functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tiziano Müller from comment #16)
> can confirm, changing the reproducer to
>
> procedure(ibar), pointer :: bar_ptr => null()
> bar_ptr => bar_impl
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> And the FE indeed accepts
>
> procedure(ibar), pointer, save :: bar_ptr => bar_impl
>
> but it should probably re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Mar 25 19:58:04 2019
New Revision: 269922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269922=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 71861
2019-03-25 Janus Weil
PR fortran/71861
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Mar 24 18:08:10 2019
New Revision: 269898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269898=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 71861
2019-03-24 Janus Weil
PR fortran/71861
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Mar 20 21:32:23 2019
New Revision: 269827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269827=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 71861
2019-03-20 Janus Weil
PR fortran/71861
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 89601, which changed state.
Bug 89601 Summary: [8 Regression] [PDT] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
resolve_component)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89751
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Follow-up to PR 89601 (essentially the same ICE, but this time on valid code):
program pdt_with_ppc
type :: q (k)
integer, kind :: k = 4
procedure (real(kind=k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Mar 13 19:52:23 2019
New Revision: 269658
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269658=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 89601
2019-03-13 Janus Weil
PR fortran/89601
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On second thought, the test case is probably invalid. Fortran 2018 has:
R727 derived-type-stmt is TYPE [ [ , type-attr-spec-list ] :: ] type-name [ (
type-param-name-list ) ]
Note that once
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84504
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84504
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Mar 9 18:25:39 2019
New Revision: 269529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269529=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 84504
2019-03-09 Janus Weil
PR fortran/84504
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70739
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87838
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84504
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch fixes the problem and shows no regressions on
x86_64-linux-gnu:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
index 51552a79cde..4e95f243661 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84504
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[F03] procedure pointer |[F08] procedure pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84504
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89621
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #10)
> You mean r267793. Yes, that's certainly what fixed the ICE.
Since it fixes a regression (ICE-on-invalid in PR 88376, ICE-on-valid here), it
should idea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > Would be useful to find out which commit triggered this change ...
>
> Revision r267783 (pr88376) seems to be a good suspec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> The test case is now rejected with trunk, looks like a recent 9 regression:
>
> ig25@linux-p51k:/tmp> gfortran m_vstring.f90
> m_vs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is another variant, possibly illegal:
module m_vstring
implicit none
public :: vstring_length
character ( len = vstring_length() ) :: char_string
contains
pure integer function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from janus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, yes, the ICE was obviously introduced with r269098.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
> In any case, the ICE does not occur with gfortran 8.2.0, and I'm pretty sure
> it was not present on trunk in December.
More specifically, I think i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89451
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Building today's trunk on x86_64-linux-gnu (Ubuntu 18.10), I see the following
failure in the gfortran testsuite:
FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37222
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88376
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jan 8 19:29:01 2019
New Revision: 267735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267735=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-08 Janus Weil
PR fortran/88047
* class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88009
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88009
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Jan 5 14:32:12 2019
New Revision: 267598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267598=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-05 Janus Weil
PR fortran/88009
* class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88009
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In fact, after getting rid of a few ICEs, the test case also shows a new
(bogus) error with trunk:
Error: PRIVATE attribute not allowed in BLOCK DATA program unit at (1)
This is certainly bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88009
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> The test compiled with r241883 + patches (2016-11-06) gives the expected
> result, compiled with r241924 + patches (2016-11-07) gives a se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88404
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Simple test case:
module m
implicit none
type :: t
character(len=:), allocatable :: cs
contains
procedure :: ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88265
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Instead of adding -march= please add instead say -mavx2 -mno-avx512f or
> whatever ISA set you want to pick, and probably also
> -mprefer-vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88265
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> Both test cases expect the assembly to contain a call to "_ZGVbN4v_sinf",
> but what I see on my system is a call to "_ZGVdN8v_sinf&quo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88265
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When regtesting the current trunk on x86_64-linux-gnu, I see the following
failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/simd-builtins-1.f90 -O scan-assembler call.*_ZGVbN4v_sinf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #33 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #30)
> I have verified that the problem goes away when using the following as
> version:
> GNU assembler (GNU Binutils) 2.31.51.20181124
Same ǵoes for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> However, in-pack.f90 is the only one that is made to fail by the combination
> of -Ofast and -march=skylake-avx512. I think it's the same problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #30 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have verified that the problem goes away when using the following as version:
GNU assembler (GNU Binutils) 2.31.51.20181124
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #27 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45086
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45086=edit
object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #26 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #25)
> Created attachment 45085 [details]
> assembler output
In fact this seems to be identical to Jakub's assembly (except for filenames
and versions s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45085
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45085=edit
assembler output
assembler output obtained from comment 0 via "gfortran-9 c0.f90
-march=skylak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Tried again, this time on real hw (i9-7960X) and still can't reproduce,
Thanks for the data point, Jakub. Could you please share your ker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> Please try kernel 4.17.xx or above.
Unfortunately I can not easily test a newer kernel on that hardware right now
:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> The following patch restores the errors
It doesn't seem to cause any regressions in the testsuite either. Feel free to
commit this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Which glibc are you using?
Same as reported in PR86735:
* Ubuntu 18.04, kernel 4.15.0
* Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7980XE CPU
* glibc 2.27, binutils 2.30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to janus from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > > More details are needed here.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> More details are needed here.
What exactly do you need?
$ gfortran-7 -march=knl -Ofast -g c0.f90
$ gdb ./a.out
[..]
(gdb) run
Starting prog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias, are you going to backport the fix to the release branches?
Jakub's comment 8 sounds like it might already be too late for 6.5, but it
would be great to have this at least on the 7 and 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually the patch is better expressed as:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index a2beb7fc90a..4710b7d2975 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One can get around the error with a patch like this:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index a2beb7fc90a..6b6e34c0d86 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran
1 - 100 of 3414 matches
Mail list logo
