https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
|WAITING |NEW
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> No activity since more than two years. IMO this should go under the section
>
> 6.2 E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69815
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Sep 18 17:39:33 2019
New Revision: 275892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275892=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/91550
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Sep 18 17:32:08 2019
New Revision: 275891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275891=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/91550
*
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mark Wieczorek from comment #0)
> I am writing about a possible bug in the gfortran GCC9 optimizer on macOS
> (installed via brew).
>
> Before going into the details, I note that my code (SHTOO
||2019-09-16
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 22:35:40 2019
New Revision: 275737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275737=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/91557
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 20:01:44 2019
New Revision: 275734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275734=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/91557
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 19:48:41 2019
New Revision: 275733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275733=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/91557
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 14:57:48 2019
New Revision: 275729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275729=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91550
* frontend-passes.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 08:43:42 2019
New Revision: 275726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275726=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91556
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Sep 14 20:40:55 2019
New Revision: 275719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275719=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91557
PR fortran/91556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Sep 14 20:40:55 2019
New Revision: 275719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275719=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91557
PR fortran/91556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
We could look at https://www.gnu.org/software/libsigsegv/ how to
do this, or maybe even include this as a prerequisite for libgfortran.
Haven't looked in detail yet...
||2019-09-12
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
See PR 91556. In the meantime, use -fallow-argument-mismatch .
I am working on a better error message.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91646
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
,
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Jerry, I am away from my computer at the moment.
Does zhis ring a bell?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig ---
A problem with such code is that type violations like that are likely to cause
actual wrong code issues because much of the aliasing analysis is type based...
What I could do is to
a) restrict the number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> The current solution is a bit annoying for implicitly-derived interfaces.
>
> Consider a code like:
>
> module foo
> implicit none
> type t1
> integer :: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #11)
> Error: Type mismatch between actual argument at (1) and actual
> argument at (2) (REAL(8)/REAL(16))
That sounds _much_ better (and is also shorter). When I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46776
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46776=edit
Concept patch
Here's what a patch could look like.
With the test case, it yields
multi.f90:2186:23:
2186 |
||2019-08-27
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
After r274937, the new flag -fallow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91390, which changed state.
Bug 91390 Summary: treatment of extra parameter in a subroutine call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 26 20:05:32 2019
New Revision: 274937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274937=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran/91473
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 26 20:05:32 2019
New Revision: 274937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274937=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran/91473
||2019-08-26
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Did you try if -fstack-clash-protection provides a better failure mode? It
> might be required to reliably detect that "end of the stack" case.
No, just a
: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I've just been bitten by a strange segfault, which turned out to be
due to insufficient stack space with -Ofast (running nf from the
Polyhedron benchmarks).
We really need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
The problem with the test case is that both sum and count
are transformational functions, i.e. they reduce the
rank.
So, ideally this would be translated into
real sum = 0.;
int count = 0;
for (i=0; i 0)
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Let's see.
We could do this like the function elimination pass, making
a list of eligible gfc_expr *, and then iterating over it
to find duplicates.
If we put in the gfc_expr * from top to bottom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Aug 24 21:12:45 2019
New Revision: 274902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274902=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran/91519
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Aug 24 21:12:45 2019
New Revision: 274902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274902=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran/91519
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91537
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91537
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Comment on attachment 46748
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46748
Leak demonstration program
Here's the output on current trunk:
862548
872548
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
Simply passing on a huge number of arguments is not enough to trigger this.
Here's a perl script to generate test cases:
while ($n=shift)
{
open FOO, ">foo-$n.f90";
print FOO <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> The function check_externals_expr
> is somewhat odd. It is declared to return int, but all return
> statements are 'return 0'. This suggests to me that proper
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Yes, the treatment of namespaces was dogdgy.
This is fixed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01438.html (not
yet reviewed).
HJ, does this patch also fix the original test case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > One or two dimensional?
>
> Two or three dimensional. I didn't review all callees and
> arguments but there seems to be a 1:1 match, so both
> callers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Yes, but in the WRF file I see no assumed-shape arrays but all
> appear to be of dimension(low:high,...) style.
One or two dimensional?
Code like
subroutine foo(a)
real, intent(in), dimension(*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
This should be exposed by
module y
contains
subroutine bar(a,n)
real, dimension(n), intent(inout) :: a
a = a + 1.0
end subroutine bar
end module y
module x
use y
contains
subroutine foo(a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Fortran compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Can you show the output of your compilation when adding -ftime-report
to the options? This will give us an idea of where the CPU cycles
are burned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Look in the gcc sources, under gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> This diff will silence warnings for explicit conversion
> using REAL() and INT() for the -Wconversion option. It
> does not silence warnings for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> The patch I've just attached ought to do this (though it's just a crude
> prototype - it only works for the gfc_error_opt case).
>
> With that caveat, how does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46726=edit
Much better patch
It a) does not try to do two things at once, and b) has passed
regression-testing at least once.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46724=edit
Something that sort of works...
and also extends the error message with a reference to where the
mismatching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Having had occasion to look at a few hundred multi-line error messages
today, I have now changed my mind on what I would consider best :-)
I now think different colors for primary and secondary error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Bug 91390 depends on bug 91443, which changed state.
Bug 91443 Summary: -Wargument-mismatch does not catch mismatch for global
procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91443, which changed state.
Bug 91443 Summary: -Wargument-mismatch does not catch mismatch for global
procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Aug 17 11:57:25 2019
New Revision: 274602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274602=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-17 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91473
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #3)
> I'm seeing a failure in the testcase libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.28.5.f90
> which looks like it might(?) be caused by this:
>
> $ gfortran a.28.5.f90
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #0)
> make -k check-target-libgomp
> RUNTESTFLAGS=fortran.exp=libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.28.5.f90
>
> FAIL: libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.28.5.f90 -O (test for excess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Aug 15 22:52:40 2019
New Revision: 274551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274551=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91443
* frontend-passes.c
||40976
Depends on||91443
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Changed my mind :-)
It's the next logical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91390, which changed state.
Bug 91390 Summary: treatment of extra parameter in a subroutine call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
What|Removed |Added
||2019-08-14
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46712
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46712=edit
Conc
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The argument mismatch for this code
module x
contains
subroutine a
call foo(1)
end subroutine a
end module x
subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valera.veryazov at teokem dot
lu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Also crashes with -fdump-global-original:
MAIN__ setpointer main==4365== Invalid read of size 8
==4365==at 0x8F8B0D: gfc_traverse_gsymbol(gfc_gsymbol*, void
(*)(gfc_gsymbol*, void*), void*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Not fixed.
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
I will look at this for a bit. However, if anybody wants to work on this, be my
guest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 13 22:57:31 2019
New Revision: 274406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274406=gcc=rev
Log:
2013-08-13 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/90563
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 13 22:25:32 2019
New Revision: 274405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274405=gcc=rev
Log:
2013-08-13 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/90563
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 90561, which changed state.
Bug 90561 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at
gimplify.c:2747
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 13 20:01:43 2019
New Revision: 274398
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274398=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-13 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 13 18:49:02 2019
New Revision: 274396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274396=gcc=rev
Log:
2013-08-13 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90563
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 13 18:43:00 2019
New Revision: 274394
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274394=gcc=rev
Log:
2013-08-13 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90563
* frontend-passes.c
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Yep, it's fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 13 15:08:10 2019
New Revision: 274383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274383=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-13 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90561
* trans.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
... and this
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(Revision 274370)
+++ trans-expr.c(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -10796,7 +10796,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
This
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(Revision 274370)
+++ trans-expr.c(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -10796,7 +10796,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
The ICE already occurs for
program p
character(:), allocatable :: z(:)
z = z(2)
end
(invalid code, but shorter :-)
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg00909.html shows quite
a few bugs on x86_64-w64-mingw32. However, many
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91422
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
Bug 91424 depends on bug 91422, which changed state.
Bug 91422 Summary: Illegal Fortran in
testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/routine-7.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91422
What|Removed |Added
801 - 900 of 3578 matches
Mail list logo
