[Bug fortran/104330] ICE in gfc_simplify_image_index, at fortran/simplify.cc:8294

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104330 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 08:24:36PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Steve, > > I think it is obvious that we cannot simplify IMAGE_INDEX here. > If you don't object, I will commit your fix for

[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 #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:36:59PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266 > > --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus --- > I do note that we already have

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:56:55PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 > > --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to anlauf

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:35:30PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8) > > If regtesting complete ok, and Mikael

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:09:28PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 > > --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 06:43:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 > > --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from

[Bug fortran/66409] Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading assignment with polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 08:42:51PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409 > > Mikael Morin changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/66409] Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading assignment with polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 07:15:59PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > @Steve: I thought there is something in the standard that says how the > resolution (specific then generic) works, but cannot

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #22 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:20:33PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 > > --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Submitted:

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:46:24PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 > > --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Mikael

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 08:10:14PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 > > --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- > On Thu, Sep 29,

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:57:24PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 > > --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 08:38:56PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 > > --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug libfortran/107031] endfile truncates file at wrong position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107031 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 08:56:22PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107031 > > --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to anlauf from

[Bug fortran/99349] ICE in match_data_constant, at fortran/decl.c:426

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:45:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Alternatively, simply catching the NULL pointer dereference by > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc > index

[Bug fortran/99349] ICE in match_data_constant, at fortran/decl.c:426

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 07:57:56PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349 > > --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl

[Bug fortran/99349] ICE in match_data_constant, at fortran/decl.c:426

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:45:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/106731] ICE on automatic array of derived type with DTIO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106731 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 07:10:20PM +, federico.perini at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106731 > > --- Comment #4 from federico --- > The TREE_STATIC assert should

[Bug fortran/106684] inconsistent array initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106684 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:16:21PM +, j...@bolding-bruggeman.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106684 > > --- Comment #5 from Jorn Bruggeman --- > Thanks; it does look like older

[Bug fortran/106684] inconsistent array initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106684 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 06:01:46PM +, j...@bolding-bruggeman.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106684 > > --- Comment #2 from Jorn Bruggeman --- > > Are you effectively saying

[Bug fortran/106565] Using a transposed matrix in matmul (GCC-10.3.0) is very slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106565 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:51:51PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106565 > > --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022

[Bug fortran/106565] Using a transposed matrix in matmul (GCC-10.3.0) is very slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106565 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:17:57PM +, quanhua.liu at noaa dot gov wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106565 > > --- Comment #5 from Quanhua Liu --- > Hi Richard, > > Using

[Bug fortran/106565] Using a transposed matrix in matmul (GCC-10.3.0) is very slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106565 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:14:16PM +, quanhua.liu at noaa dot gov wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106565 > > --- Comment #4 from Quanhua Liu --- > Using > gfortran -O3

[Bug fortran/106209] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.cc:2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106209 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 07:35:21PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > > Instead of an assert(), simply

[Bug fortran/105243] ICE in next_char, at fortran/io.cc:160

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:42:30PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > when using your patch from comment#2 and moving it up slightly, it will > also improve error handling for unlimited polymorphic

[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 #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 08:11:01AM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413 > > --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to kargl from comment

[Bug fortran/106121] ICE in gfc_simplify_extends_type_of, at fortran/simplify.cc:3109

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106121 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:43:39PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > > Infamous NULL pointer dereference. > > Yes. > > Shorter fix: > > diff --git

[Bug fortran/104313] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE verify_gimple failed with -ff2c since r10-2279-ge0af8f52b10385d8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104313 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:47:54AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104313 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/105813] ICE in gfc_simplify_unpack, at fortran/simplify.cc:8490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105813 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:18:40PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Simpler fix: > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.cc b/gcc/fortran/check.cc >

[Bug fortran/105691] Incorrect calculation of INDEX(str1,str2) at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:28:27PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691 > > --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Submitted version:

[Bug fortran/106005] (F2023) Support for REDUCE clause in DO CONCURRENT loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:56:50PM +, wileamyp at outlook dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005 > > --- Comment #5 from Wileam Yonatan Phan --- > Hi Steve, > > I think I

[Bug fortran/106005] (F2023) Support for REDUCE clause in DO CONCURRENT loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:31:20PM +, wileamyp at outlook dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005 > > --- Comment #2 from Wileam Yonatan Phan --- > Wait, I thought the

[Bug fortran/106005] (F2023) Support for REDUCE clause in DO CONCURRENT loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:31:20PM +, wileamyp at outlook dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106005 > > --- Comment #2 from Wileam Yonatan Phan --- > Wait, I thought the

[Bug fortran/105759] is_contiguous(zero_size_array(2:0)) wrongly returns .true.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105759 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 09:59:48AM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105759 > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > JFTR: Cray and NAG

[Bug fortran/105243] ICE in next_char, at fortran/io.cc:160

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 07:56:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 > > --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/105243] ICE in next_char, at fortran/io.cc:160

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:16:51PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 > > --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- > On Mon, May 16, 2022

[Bug fortran/105243] ICE in next_char, at fortran/io.cc:160

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:27:24PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243 > > --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:51:10PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > The following untested

[Bug fortran/78054] gfortran.dg/pr70673.f90 FAILs at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78054 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:49:17PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78054 > > --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig --- > (In reply to anlauf from comment

[Bug fortran/78054] gfortran.dg/pr70673.f90 FAILs at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78054 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:03:54AM +, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #4) > > You either need to remove the above two lines

[Bug target/89125] Misoptimization of converting sin(x) and cos(x) into sincos(x,,)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 07:28:50AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125 > > Richard Biener changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/105206] mis-optimization with -ffast-math and __builtin_powf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105206 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 02:45:22PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > This might be related to PR89125. The patch I attached to that PR has never > found its way into the repository. I'll do some

[Bug libquadmath/105101] incorrect rounding for sqrtq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 10:23:39AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from

[Bug fortran/105182] [11/12 Regression] compiling NJOY21 causes a ICE segmentation fault: 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:58:36PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 > > --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I found a machine

[Bug fortran/105182] compiling NJOY21 causes a ICE segmentation fault: 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:09:01AM +, kermitnuc at gmail dot com wrote: > --- Comment #6 from Kermit Bunde --- > I ran the stack size up to ~64Mb. > > I can compile MCNP which is much bigger. > Again,

[Bug fortran/105182] compiling NJOY21 causes a ICE segmentation fault: 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:54:00PM +, kermitnuc at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 > > --- Comment #4 from Kermit Bunde --- > This subroutine compiles when GCC

[Bug fortran/105182] compiling NJOY21 causes a ICE segmentation fault: 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:50:42PM +, kermitnuc at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182 > > --- Comment #2 from Kermit Bunde --- > (In reply to kargl from comment

[Bug fortran/105138] [7,8,9,10,11,12,F95] Bogus error when function name does not shadow an intrinsic when RESULT clause is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105138 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 08:27:03PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #8) > > This patch fixes the error. The

[Bug fortran/104927] Invalid array size specification accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104927 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:10:41PM +, federico.perini at gmail dot com wrote: > --- Comment #2 from federico --- > Yeah I'm surprised but wrong. The "overriding" option of the rhs size > specification is

[Bug fortran/104812] Construct-name with same variable name in scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104812 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:27:41AM +, fruitclover at gmail dot com wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from Mike K. --- > Thanks, and subroutine s2 conforming Fortran 2018, 19.4, right? > No. The logical

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:32:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:10:34PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > I was wondering if we also need to allow BT_CLASS. I'm not sure. I don't use CLASSes, so only know a bit about them. If I

[Bug fortran/104332] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in resolve_symbol, at fortran/resolve.cc:15815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104332 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 08:04:45PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104332 > > kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/104313] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE verify_gimple failed with -ff2c since r10-2279-ge0af8f52b10385d8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104313 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 03:52:51PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104313 > > --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > diff --git

[Bug fortran/104314] ICE in deferred_op_assign, at fortran/resolve.cc:11794

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104314 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:14:39PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Untested patch. > Seems to pass regression testing.

[Bug c++/104134] Bootstrap on FreeBSD files compiling gcc/cp/error.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104134 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:29:18AM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > Note, I justed started a bootstrap with FreeBSD system compiler > clang/clang++. I'll report back later if it

[Bug c++/104134] Bootstrap on FreeBSD files compiling gcc/cp/error.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104134 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:25:35AM +, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104134 > > --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- > The code uses the M_ macro: > >

[Bug c++/104134] Bootstrap on FreeBSD files compiling gcc/cp/error.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104134 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:54:25PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- > For this PR, I guess the big question is what is different between FreeBSD and > Linux

[Bug fortran/104100] Passing an allocated array to a C bind function alters the bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104100 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:15:25PM +, hzhou321 at anl dot gov wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104100 > > --- Comment #2 from Hui Zhou --- > Great! That means it has already been

[Bug fortran/103412] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size since r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103412 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:07:44PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Alternative patch: > Either patch fixes the problem and I'll offer that

[Bug fortran/103505] ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587 since r8-7594-g078c5aff5ed83e9c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 09:51:23PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Submitted as: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-December/057102.html > Just saw the commit fly by. Thanks for

[Bug fortran/103505] ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587 since r8-7594-g078c5aff5ed83e9c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:42:44PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/103505] ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587 since r8-7594-g078c5aff5ed83e9c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 08:26:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:13:05PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Unfortunately the

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 02:18:46PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > > > ---

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Unfortunately the

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:02:34PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > > > The nearly obvious fix: > > > > > > diff --git

[Bug fortran/99853] ICE: Cannot convert 'LOGICAL(4)' to 'INTEGER(8)' (etc.)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:04:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug testsuite/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 05:05:26PM +, sandra at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910 > > --- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I will rewrite this

[Bug testsuite/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 05:28:08AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- > I think the following is better: > > #ifndef alloca > #define alloca __builtin_alloca

[Bug fortran/102458] ICE tree check: expected array_type, have pointer_type in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:6136

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:17:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/102371] Error for type spec in FORALL statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102371 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:05:02PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102371 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/102331] ICE in attr_decl1, at fortran/decl.c:8691

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 08:57:45PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331 > > --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:40:31PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 > > -fallow-argument-mismatch was added to allow users, > > who refuse to

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:34:17PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > > > No, it is not. The -fallow-argument-match option was given to > > user to allow them to compile their broken code. It

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:14:26PM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 > > --- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- > 1) The gfortran manual

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:23:46PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #17) > > There is Fortran code in libgfortran that is compiled > > by gfortran when the

[Bug fortran/102113] parsing error in assigned goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102113 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:28:06PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > are you going to submit your patch? > The patch has been submitted to bugzilla. That's as far as I can go.

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:08:07PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #16 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl

[Bug fortran/101349] ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field, at fortran/trans-array.c:140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101349 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:31:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Steve, > > are you going to submit your patch? > I submitted the patch to

[Bug fortran/101327] ICE in find_array_element, at fortran/expr.c:1355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101327 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:35:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Steve, > > are you going to submit this or your version? > I no longer have the ability to commit changes, so I won't being

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:11:12PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #14 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 03:23:59PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > > > You need to use -fdefault-real-8 -fdefault-double-8 when compiling both > > files. How is the 2nd invocation of gfortran

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:26:59AM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #7 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- > The suggested removal of

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:49:54PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > subroutine foo4 > > implicit none > > real(4) :: ar(2,3), v(1) > > That should have read: > > real :: ar(2,3), v(1) >

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:15:11AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- > Now I wonder, since libgfortran

[Bug fortran/101871] Array of strings of different length passed as an argument produces invalid result.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101871 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 07:21:42PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101871 > > --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > In

[Bug fortran/101632] NON_RECURSIVE procedure prefix is unsupported. F2018 defaults to recursive procedures.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:37:40PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 > > Janne Blomqvist changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/101632] NON_RECURSIVE procedure prefix is unsupported. F2018 defaults to recursive procedures.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:15:53PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 > > --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Created attachment 51207

[Bug fortran/101564] ICE in resolve_allocate_deallocate, at fortran/resolve.c:8169

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101564 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 08:37:02PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-July/056264.html > OK.

[Bug fortran/101399] Horizonal tab character not ignored on print statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101399 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:44:11PM +, urbanjost at comcast dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101399 > > --- Comment #4 from urbanjost at comcast dot net --- > Wow. I cannot

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 05:09:05PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote: > > It should be valid, type-spec is explicitly given and the ac-values > are type compatible (see e.g. F2018 7.8). With len(x(1:2))==2 the

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:45:12AM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote: > --- Comment #9 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- > Steve, is this a GCC bug or a FreeBSD bug (or if it is something else, what >

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:43:28AM +, yuri at tsoft dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 > > --- Comment #7 from Yuri --- > fpu-387.h is in the gcc10 source tree: > > $

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:56:57AM +, yuri at tsoft dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 > > --- Comment #5 from Yuri --- > config.log doesn't contain the IEEE string

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:47:30PM +, yuri at tsoft dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 > > --- Comment #3 from Yuri --- > On amd64 gcc installs the file

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 06:49:11PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7) > > There is no default initialization in the code below. default > > initialization is

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 09:12:15PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > There seems to be something fishy with default initialization of function >

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:31:49PM +, David.Smith at lmu dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 > > --- Comment #2 from David.Smith at lmu dot edu --- > > With neither

<    1   2   3   >