https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a9caf7883103bc3a80dfc9e4797bb849b3c211c
commit r13-6771-g3a9caf7883103bc3a80dfc9e4797bb849b3c211c
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #16 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> For the record, the fix is:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> index 1d973d12ff1..1a03e458d99 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
JFTR: Nvidia also doesn't like the reproducer:
NVFORTRAN-S-1056-MODULE prefix is only allowed for subprograms that were
declared as separate module procedures (pr109209.f90: 63)
0 inform, 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
For the record, the fix is:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
index 1d973d12ff1..1a03e458d99 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
@@ -11760,6 +11760,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #12)
> I bet that's due to the finalization
> commit r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee
> but I have not verified.
>
...snip...
See my reply above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
I bet that's due to the finalization
commit r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee
but I have not verified.
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10)
> Thanks for checking, Tobias. Are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #8)
> The debugger shows for the example in comment 4 for the line
>
>69 | history_new(1:s) = res_set%history(1:s)
>
> the following expression:
>
> (gdb)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
>
> module subroutine t3_set_expand (res_set)
> class(t3_set_t), intent(inout) :: res_set
> type(t3_t), dimension(:), allocatable :: history_new
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
The debugger shows for the example in comment 4 for the line
69 | history_new(1:s) = res_set%history(1:s)
the following expression:
(gdb) p gfc_debug_expr(expr)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
It looks like it is NOT Harald's and Tobias' commit,
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/901edd99b44976b3c2b13a7d525d9e315540186a
I reverted that one, and still get the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Actually could be also this commit here:
commit 901edd99b44976b3c2b13a7d525d9e315540186a
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Tue Mar 14 20:23:06 2023 +0100
Fortran: rank checking with explicit-/assumed-size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
This could be either this commit
commit d7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sat Mar 18 07:56:23 2023 +
/Fortran
I think, it is NOT this one:
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is the promised reproducer, which fails even when not using submodules:
$ gfortran -c reproducer.f90
reproducer.f90:69:4:
69 | history_new(1:s) = res_set%history(1:s)
|1
Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 54713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54713=edit
Promised short reproducer, 73 lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 54712
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54712=edit
Second, single-file reproducer, still 6295 lines
Still further reducing, stay tuned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 54710
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54710=edit
First still pretty large reproducer
I will provide a smaller reproducer soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[13.0
19 matches
Mail list logo
