https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:705ed42a1ad950860f46c51216ff69dbe0f4857a
commit r13-3176-g705ed42a1ad950860f46c51216ff69dbe0f4857a
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #22)
> In looking at the patch, there is a
>
>gcc_assert (op1->ts.type != BT_UNKNOWN);
>
> in reduce_binary_ac() near line 1334 and
>
>
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:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53651|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #17)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 53651 [details]
> > Revised patch
>
> Unfortunately this regresses on gfortran.dg/pr91552.f90, e.g.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
>
> We could walk through the elements of each array passed to reduce_binary
> and check the types of the elements there, or do this check in a somewhat
> more clever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> Created attachment 53651 [details]
> Revised patch
Unfortunately this regresses on gfortran.dg/pr91552.f90, e.g.
print *, 2 * [real :: 1, [2], 3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53601|0 |1
is obsolete|
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #13)
> If we pass this check, we proceed to reduce_binary, where if one (or both)
> of the operands is an array, we do numerical evaluation for every
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
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,
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #9)
> This catches the parenthesis.
... but it is still not sufficient to handle ugly stuff like:
print *, [real :: 1, +(+(.true.))] * 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #8)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> > > Yes, that would work! I was thinking of something more complex
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> > Yes, that would work! I was thinking of something more complex
> > such as looking at the types of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> Yes, that would work! I was thinking of something more complex
> such as looking at the types of the operand(s), but simplification
> probably handles
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> I think we need to expand the checking in array.cc
>
> /* Convert components of an array constructor to the type in ts. */
>
> static match
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53601
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53601=edit
Hackish patch
This patch fixes all ICE in comment#0 and comment#1.
However, it papers over the issue that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
25 matches
Mail list logo
