http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913
Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 18:12 ---
is this now fixed, all test cases seem to be passing ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913
--- Comment #19 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 22:11
---
(In reply to comment #16)
Re-confirmed with current trunk, testcase from (comment #8).
I think it now passes.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #18 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-12-09 11:49 ---
still fails with current trunk
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last
--- Comment #17 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-10-11 12:49 ---
FYI, the testcase in comment #8 fails for '-O2 -fwhole-file' but not with '-O2
-flto', even though the latter option implies the first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-22 15:44
---
Re-confirmed with current trunk, testcase from (comment #8).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-03 10:11 ---
testcases in comment #13 and comment #14 pass with current trunk. The testcase
in comment #8 still fails.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-28 16:56
---
Similar case, from reduced import.f90:
subroutine bar(x)
type myType
sequence
integer :: i
end type myType
type(myType) :: x
x%i = 5
end subroutine bar
program foo
integer, parameter :: dp = 8
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-28 20:43
---
Another one, reduced from function_module_1.f90:
module M1
INTEGER p
CONTAINS
subroutine AA ()
implicit NONE
p = 1
end subroutine
end module
program P1
USE M1
implicit none
p = 0
call AA ()
if
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 10:55 ---
The whole-file patches now expose this problem.
! { dg-do run }
! Test the fix for PR34438, in which default initializers
! forced the derived type to be static; ie. initialized once
! during the lifetime of the
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 11:47 ---
Cf. also thread at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-06/msg00057.html
(Maybe if -fwhole-file is the permanent default and this problem is fixed, the
hack at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00937.html
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-04 11:49 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL
properly
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 11:47
---
Cf. also thread
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 12:51 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
That hack is already gone ... ;)
The truck hack yes, the question is whether one can also do something about the
following? Or is this a wider problem?
/* ??? Array types are not
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-04 13:39 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL
properly
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 12:51
---
(In reply to
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-02-07 15:32 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I guess that since Richard says that it's a problem, we had better confirm
it:-)
Do we need a bugzilla field 'confirmatio ad verecundiam' ;-)
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-02-07 18:49 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL
properly
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-02-07 15:32 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 13:44 ---
I guess that since Richard says that it's a problem, we had better confirm
it:-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 15:25 ---
*** Bug 38965 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 20:22 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00937.html
Richard,
I am not sure that any of the gfortran developers have the skills to deal with
this. I read the words about canonical
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 20:50 ---
I was able to work around the issue sofar, but more analysis is still required.
I will see if I can find some time for that.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 16:23 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00937.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913
22 matches
Mail list logo
