[Bug fortran/111853] f951: Segmentation fault at gfc_expression_rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111853 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 09:00:22AM +, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > This seems safe to backport, what do you think? > Paul just landed a big

[Bug fortran/114023] complex part%ref of complex named constant array cannot be used in an initialization expression.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114023 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:58PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Steve, Anuj is interested in digging in on this one. This will be a learning >

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 08:01:02PM +, kyle.shores44 at gmail dot com wrote: > > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #19) > > > > It seems your code is hitting a NULL pointer dereference when > >

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:42:05PM +, kyle.shores44 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 > > --- Comment #17 from Kyle Shores --- > I was able to get tuv-x to

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 04:44:52PM +, kyle.shores44 at gmail dot com wrote: > I have not made a smaller example, but we have since removed json-fortran as a > dependency for tuv-x. > > So it should be

[Bug fortran/114141] ASSOCIATE and complex part ref when associate target is a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:33:51PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas --- > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9) > > --- snip --- > > > % gfcx -o z a.f90 > > >

[Bug fortran/114141] ASSOCIATE and complex part ref when associate target is a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:24:16PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > Indeed. Bit more reading of F2023, 11.1.3 agrees with you. > >11.1.3.1 > >The ASSOCIATE construct

[Bug fortran/114141] ASSOCIATE and complex part ref when associate target is a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:27:24PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141 > > --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- > (In reply to kargl from comment

[Bug fortran/114024] ICE allocate statement with source=cmp%re and z an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114024 --- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:42:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114024 > > allocate (xx, source = cmp%re) > > > gfcx -c 0093/0093_0130.f90 >

[Bug fortran/113883] allocatable length parameter used but is undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113883 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:51:02AM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > The trunk branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6caec7d9ec37e60e718a12934c85bac9c12757ac >

[Bug fortran/113845] ice in gfc_get_array_ss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113845 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 10:06:47PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Created attachment 57374 > -->

[Bug fortran/113823] ice in gfc_get_element_type, at fortran/trans-types.cc:1286

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:43:08PM +, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823 > > --- Comment #6 from David Binderman --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from

[Bug fortran/113823] ice in gfc_get_element_type, at fortran/trans-types.cc:1286

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 07:38:59PM +, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823 > > --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- > (In reply to kargl from comment

[Bug fortran/113152] Fortran 2023 half-cycle trigonometric functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 --- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:35:41PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #14) > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at

[Bug fortran/113152] Fortran 2023 half-cycle trigonometric functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 --- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 09:52:39PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 > > I think that you cannot do > > + if (MPFR_HALF_CYCLE) > > you really

[Bug fortran/82943] [F03] Error with type-bound procedure of parametrized derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943 --- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:37:17PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943 > > --- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle --- > (In reply to Alexander

[Bug libfortran/113313] execute_command_line hangs at run time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113313 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 07:03:05AM +, john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113313 > > --- Comment #2 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz --- > Thank you! You

[Bug fortran/113305] ICE with do concurrent and ivdep

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113305 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:24:40PM +, ivan.pribec at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113305 > > --- Comment #3 from Ivan Pribec --- > In the mail archive >

[Bug fortran/113152] Fortran 2023 half-cycle trigonometric functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 08:34:38PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 > > --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #28 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:35:32PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > --- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Created attachment 56882 >

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 07:48:08PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > --- Comment #24 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Jerry

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:03:35PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > --- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle --- > I have the patch applied. >

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Do we need any other test cases? > I think that we need not added any testcases. The degree trig function have been

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 07:53:01PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle --- > (In reply to anlauf from

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 09:45:33PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > here's a minor update that fully removes the "Extended math intrinsics" node. > Otherwise your patch would not compile here.

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 07:59:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:58:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:56:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > The patch looks mostly

[Bug fortran/109684] compiling failure: complaining about a final subroutine of a type being not PURE (while it is indeed PURE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684 --- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 03:34:42PM +, trnka at scm dot com wrote: > > If expr->where is pointing to NULL, then something is definitely not > > set up correctly or your code is now going through a

[Bug fortran/104649] ICE in gfc_match_formal_arglist, at fortran/decl.cc:6733 since r6-1958-g4668d6f9c00d4767

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104649 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 05:18:02PM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > commit r14-4983-gc6430d3e6d3279c7e4be9d189031a17bb3dec347 > Author: Harald Anlauf > Date: Thu Oct 26 22:32:35 2023

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote: > Ok, indeed they were some warnings. I had to use _current_locus, as you > suggested, so now all of them are pointed at the end of the

[Bug fortran/111880] [9/10/11/12/13] False positive warning of obsolescent COMMON block with Fortran submodule

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 05:20:46PM +, zed.three at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880 > > --- Comment #2 from zed.three at gmail dot com --- > The common block is

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 04:00:10PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote: > > No, I meant building *gcc* with those flags, but alas each gcc compilation > stage was still building with "-O2" so almost all of

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:00:27AM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote: > > It says something about a non-recursive function likely calling itself. I > will > inspect my source, even it is a bit too big.

[Bug fortran/110644] Error in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:56:32PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote: > --- Comment #4 from Alberto Luaces --- > I got the same error in almost the same circumstances (crash in > error.cc:1078). > > I

[Bug fortran/107716] Getting negative values with NINT when using doubleprecision values in range on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 07:07:37PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716 > > --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin --- > (In reply to kargl from comment

[Bug fortran/99711] Crash when reading an allocated character array in namelist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:58:15PM +, philippe.wautelet at aero dot obs-mip.fr wrote: > > What is the status of this bug? > > It seems that it is not present any more in the 12.x and 13.x GCC versions.

[Bug fortran/109684] compiling failure: complaining about a final subroutine of a type being not PURE (while it is indeed PURE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684 --- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 04:19:52PM +, trnka at scm dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684 > > --- Comment #22 from Tomáš Trnka --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment

[Bug fortran/109684] compiling failure: complaining about a final subroutine of a type being not PURE (while it is indeed PURE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684 --- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:08:45AM +, trnka at scm dot com wrote: > > --- Comment #17 from Tomáš Trnka --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #10) > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc

[Bug fortran/109684] compiling failure: complaining about a final subroutine of a type being not PURE (while it is indeed PURE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc > index 3cd470ddcca..b0bb8bc1471 100644 > ---

[Bug fortran/109684] compiling failure: complaining about a final subroutine of a type being not PURE (while it is indeed PURE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Note final->attr.pure = 0 seems to contradict C1595 while constructing > the wrapper. I'm not too familiar with this portion of

[Bug fortran/110825] TYPE(*) dummy argument to generate an unused hidden argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110825 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 08:54:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110825 > > --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/99139] ICE: gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol '__tmp_UNKNOWN_0_rank_1'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 06:15:44AM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139 > > --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- > (In reply to anlauf from comment #7) >

[Bug fortran/103796] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_val, at fortran/trans-expr.c:9446 since r8-6395-gf8862a1b2afad9d1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:34:02PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796 > > Jerry DeLisle changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 06:06:59PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Fixed. > Thanks for taking care of the commit.

[Bug fortran/106035] F2018 allows an IMPORT statement within the BLOCK construct.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:51:17PM +, jde...@santafe-conicet.gov.ar wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from Jorge D'Elia --- > > The access restriction is a reason of the use IMPORT statements in the >

[Bug fortran/109358] Wrong formatting with T-descriptor during stream output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:51:02AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358 > > Jerry DeLisle changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 07:26:43PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 > > --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 03:55:51PM +, Gary.White at ColoState dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 > > --- Comment #9 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu dot edu> --- >

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 07:11:17PM +, Gary.White at ColoState dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 > (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > > (In reply to

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:37:48AM +, adelson.oliveira at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 > > --- Comment #8 from Adelson Oliveira --- > Then I should have

[Bug fortran/109575] Implement runtime check for valid function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109575 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:24:45PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109575 > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I have some idea how

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 05:22:59AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > I think we agree on all points. Here's the diff I envision. > NOte, I've restricted it to user defined functions. Remove >

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 07:15:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 > > --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 05:25:20PM +, leandro.lupori at linaro dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 > > I'm trying to check with the issue reporter how extensive is his

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 07:44:36PM +, leandro.lupori at linaro dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 > > --- Comment #5 from Leandro Lupori --- > Ok, thanks for the

[Bug fortran/109453] [REGRESSION] UBOUND incorrect when used in declartion of another array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109453 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 01:25:16AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > $ gfc -v > Using built-in specs. > COLLECT_GCC=gfc >

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:16:20PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > > Remove ice-on-invalid-code as I don't

[Bug fortran/109322] -fc-prototypes does not correctly translate INTEGER(KIND=C_SIZE_T), and other sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 07:21:21PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > For ILP32 (32bit x86) and LLP64IL32 (64bit Windows/mingw) targets, it will use > c_long_long which is outputted wrong. Anyways

[Bug fortran/109322] -fc-prototypes does not correctly translate INTEGER(KIND=C_SIZE_T), and other sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:42:08PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322 > > --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023

[Bug fortran/109322] -fc-prototypes does not correctly translate INTEGER(KIND=C_SIZE_T), and other sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:28:38PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322 > > --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- > There is a bug with -m32 and

[Bug fortran/109322] -fc-prototypes does not correctly translate INTEGER(KIND=C_SIZE_T), and other sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 05:50:05PM +, emr-gnu at hev dot psu.edu wrote: > > > Extending my original demonstrator, if you add a "INTEGER(KIND=C_INT64_T) :: > E", you get the following output: > > >

[Bug fortran/104572] ICE in gfc_resolve_finalizers, at fortran/resolve.cc:13646

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104572 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:02:14PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > > Self explanatory. > > > > diff --git

[Bug fortran/109223] parameters for a type on IMPLICIT do not work. For example: IMPLICIT TYPE(REAL(KIND=REAL128)) fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:27:58PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > So, there is a chunk of code in decl.cc(4682-4689 or so), > > if (implicit_flag == 1) > { > if (matched_type && gfc_match_char

[Bug fortran/109223] parameters for a type on IMPLICIT do not work. For example: IMPLICIT TYPE(REAL(KIND=REAL128)) fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 02:57:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223 > > --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to urbanjost

[Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 08:35:41AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 > > --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from

[Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 > > --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023

[Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 > > --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023

[Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:25:53PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- > This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling > make

[Bug fortran/92639] Error: Integer too big for its kind at (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92639 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 05:51:29PM +, cessenat at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92639 > > --- Comment #2 from Olivier Cessenat --- > integer(kind=4) valid range is

[Bug middle-end/108878] Mis-optimization with splitting floating point into a significand and exponent.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:48:07AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878 > > --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- > For the specific testcase I

[Bug middle-end/108878] Mis-optimization with splitting floating point into a significand and exponent.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:49:38PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878 > > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- > So the right way of fixing this

[Bug fortran/108663] Accepts invalid bug with pdtXXX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108663 --- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl --- > $ gfortran-13-20221218 -c z1.f90 # missing error > $ > $ gfortran-13-20230115 -c z1.f90 > z1.f90:12:7: > >12 |use m, only: t, pdtt, s > | 1 > internal compiler error: in

[Bug fortran/108621] [12 regression]: bind(c) pointer array spurious maybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 06:13:33PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621 > > This appears to be related to Sandra and Tobias's work on CFI. In

[Bug fortran/103506] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_free_namespace, at fortran/symbol.c:4039 since r10-2798-ge68a35ae4a65d2b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:06:12AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506 > > --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle --- > > Well we sure are not going

[Bug fortran/103506] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_free_namespace, at fortran/symbol.c:4039 since r10-2798-ge68a35ae4a65d2b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:56:02AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506 > > --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- > I found that the attached

[Bug fortran/108528] [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_array_spec(): Array spec clobbered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 07:44:05PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Steve, I'm going to commit your patch. > Thanks.

[Bug fortran/108527] [13 Regression] ICE in compare_bound_int(): Bad expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 08:51:03PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > The patch in comment#2 regtests cleanly. > > I can package it and submit if

[Bug fortran/102595] ICE in var_element, at fortran/decl.c:298 since r10-5607-gde89b5748d68b76b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102595 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 08:07:16PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102595 > > --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle --- > I started to do some

[Bug fortran/108369] FM509 Fails to compile with error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:49:44AM +, ben.brewer at codethink dot co.uk wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 > > --- Comment #11 from Ben Brewer --- > So I was using "-x f77"

[Bug fortran/108369] FM509 Fails to compile with error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 01:09:22AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 > > --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Unbelievable! I found the

[Bug fortran/108369] FM509 Fails to compile with error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:50:37PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 > > --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to anlauf from

[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:50:08PM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- > The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : > >

[Bug fortran/107995] ICE: Segmentation fault, without backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 08:23:39PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Can we close this one?

[Bug fortran/107995] ICE: Segmentation fault, without backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 07:37:06PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > > This patch prevents the ICE. > > The patch is mostly good, but does not set the errmsg

[Bug fortran/81615] save-temps and gfortran produces *.f90 files instead of *.i or *i90 files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:47:44AM +, barrowes at alum dot mit.edu wrote: > > Thanks for engaging, and thanks for the suggestion. I might be able to do this > over the winter. Could you give me a hint as

[Bug fortran/81615] save-temps and gfortran produces *.f90 files instead of *.i or *i90 files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:50:56AM +, barrowes at alum dot mit.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615 > > --- Comment #10 from Ben Barrowes --- > The reason the stdout

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 08:00:35PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 > > --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 08:14:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 > > --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Weslley

[Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > Does anyone know what is meant by "Fortran rules"? F66 does not > have any particular algorithm specified. I'll

[Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 > > --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022

[Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:05:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 > > --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to anlauf from

[Bug fortran/107707] ICE in gfc_compare_actual_formal, at fortran/interface.cc:3284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 09:16:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/107397] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_arith_plus, at fortran/arith.cc:654

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 08:31:58PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/107441] optional arguments are identified as "present" when missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107441 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:11:08PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107441 > > --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to anlauf

[Bug fortran/103413] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size since r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:22:47PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Status|NEW |ASSIGNED > > --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Submitted:

[Bug fortran/103413] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size since r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:24:04PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413 > > --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/107266] Reject kind=4 characters for BIND(C) – it invalid and generates wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:40:59AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > (In reply to kargl from comment #9) > > Please commit the patch in comment #7. character(kind=4) is not > > interoperable > >

[Bug fortran/107266] Reject kind=4 characters for BIND(C) – it invalid and generates wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 05:29:58PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > % gfcx -c -std=f2018 a.f90 > a.f90:1:30: > > 1 | character(kind=4) function bar(x, y, z) bind(C) > |

[Bug fortran/107266] Reject kind=4 characters for BIND(C) – it invalid and generates wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:40:59AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > (b) subroutine bar(x, y, z) bind(C) > character(kind=4,len=*) :: x > character(kind=4) :: y(:) >

  1   2   3   >