https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78640
--- Comment #3 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Yes, I am one who think that respecting this constrain is important: I was not
aware that standard does not allow pure polymorphic functions, thus I mislead
myself from the fact that the compiler did bot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #15 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I add that the workaround (inserting an allocatable inside the type being a
result of polymorphic function) if used into a real code
(https://github.com/szaghi/FORESEER) does not solve the memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #13 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I have done further test about Vipul's workaround, you can find my complete
report here
https://github.com/szaghi/leaks_hunter#results
Essentially, my current conclusion is that the workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #12 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Created attachment 41267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41267=edit
simple inheritance leaker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #10 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
here https://github.com/szaghi/leaks_hunter you can find my report. Into the
report I shown all the test I have done, I provide the sources and the scripts
I used to generate them.
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #8 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear Janus,
> No offense taken. Asking questions is not a crime ;)
Good, thank you for the clarification.
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there simply is no roadmap and I'm not able
> to provide one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #6 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear Janus,
thank you very much for your help, it is really appreciated.
> Note that most gfortran developers actually sacrifice their spare time to
> contribute, without receiving any kind of financial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #2 from Stefano Zaghi ---
A very kind and great Fortraner (Chris MacMackin) has just let me know that a
very similar (or really the same) bug has been already reported (60913) here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #1 from Stefano Zaghi ---
I forget to say that I test this issue with GNU gfortran gcc version 6.3.1
20170306 and gcc version 7.0.0 20161206 (experimental).
My best regards.
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: stefano.zaghi at cnr dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41241=edit
Code test to raise the memory leaks
Dear
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: stefano.zaghi at cnr dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40685=edit
MCVE of ICE with submodule
D
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: stefano.zaghi at cnr dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40450
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40450=edit
MCVE of CAF-DT with allocatable member
My current "env" is
+ GNU Fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78682
--- Comment #7 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I confirm that with gcc 7.0.0 this ICE vanishes.
However, I find a new ICE. I am not sure if it is good to report it here or if
it is better to open a new ticket. In doubt, I start adding some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78682
--- Comment #6 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Created attachment 40307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40307=edit
MCVE of CAF-DT with allocatable member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78682
--- Comment #4 from Stefano Zaghi ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> I see the ICE with 5.4.1 and 6.2.0, but I can confirm that it is gone on
> current trunk.
>
> For which reason do you think the code is invalid?
I have not yet studied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78682
--- Comment #2 from Stefano Zaghi ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> This seems to have been fixed on trunk (7.0), likely r238007.
Dear Dominique, thank you for your fast replay. I can check this tomorrow after
a fresh
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: stefano.zaghi at cnr dot it
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40252=edit
the MCVE reproducing the ICE
Dear all,
I
17 matches
Mail list logo
