--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-08 08:39 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Thanks for the report
Paul and Mikael
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-08 08:40 ---
Subject: Bug 35820
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 8 08:38:42 2008
New Revision: 141707
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141707
Log:
2008-11-08 Mikael Morin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-06 06:19 ---
Mikael,
I'll assign this to you, since it needs to be marked as fixed or applied to 4.3
and marked as fixed - I forget which was agreed.
If you do not have a 4.3 tree up and running, I could do the honours for you.
--- Comment #10 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-31 15:38 ---
Subject: Bug 35820
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Oct 31 15:37:17 2008
New Revision: 141496
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141496
Log:
2008-10-31 Mikael Morin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-28 14:06
---
So that they are not lost, patches are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-10/msg00153.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-10/msg00181.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-10/msg00212.html
See the
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 15:30 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Confirm. While I do not get any crash like Dominique, valgrind shows that that
there is a problem:
==20532== Invalid write of size 8
==20532==at 0x463933: resolve_code
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 16:27 ---
Confirm. While I do not get any crash like Dominique, valgrind shows that
there is a problem:
How do you extract this diagnostic from valgrind? I have never used it before
but found it rolled into FC9.
Well,
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-01 17:40 ---
Tobias,
Does this do the job?
Paul
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 134835)
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-01 19:47 ---
Does this do the job?
BTW It breaks forall_7.f90 because it does not distinguish multiple sub-blocks
but, I suspect it cures the segfault/memory problem.
This needs a more intelligent approach to storing the
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-04 09:40 ---
I think the problem are related to nested FORALLs. The following is enough to
cause the valgrind error (add the needed definitions from comment
0). If I comment either the RDA(J1) assignment in the outer
10 matches
Mail list logo
