[Bug fortran/44497] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/maxlocval_2.f90

2010-06-12 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-12 15:21 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 44498 *** -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/44497] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/maxlocval_2.f90

2010-06-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44497

[Bug fortran/44497] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/maxlocval_2.f90

2010-06-11 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 12:43 --- (In reply to comment #2) It could be a dup of PR 44498. It if does not turn out to be a dup of the bitmap work / PR 44498, we need a backtrace or valgrind trace (with minimal options, e.g. -O0 if possible). --

[Bug fortran/44497] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/maxlocval_2.f90

2010-06-10 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 23:02 --- I got [...@gnu-29 testsuite]$ ../gfortran -B../ -S /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/maxlocval_2.f90 -O1

[Bug fortran/44497] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/maxlocval_2.f90

2010-06-10 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 22:37 --- This is a context free PR. Please provide details. -- kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added