http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:25:22 2014
New Revision: 206429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58182
* resolve.c (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the patch in comment 2 is simple enough to be committed as obvious,
which I will do shortly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> This is slightly different from the error message in comment 0, but it still
> sounds reasonable to me.
The error message depends on whether the code is in one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right. Like PR 59023, this regression is probably due to r199120. Unfortunately
it is not fixed by r206355, but I think the patch in comment 2 does make sense
after all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The ICE seems to be gone at r206252. Can we close this PR?
I still get an ICE with r206348 when compiling the test in two files, but not
when merged in a single file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE seems to be gone at r206252. Can we close this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Benson from comment #4)
> "Btw, does it make sense to have a dummy procedure with 'BIND(C)' at all? I
> have the feeling that this might be something which should be forbidden in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Benson ---
"Btw, does it make sense to have a dummy procedure with 'BIND(C)' at all? I
have the feeling that this might be something which should be forbidden in
general ... (?)"
Possibly not... This was reduced fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> There may be other ways to fix this, but a particularly simple one is just
> flipping the checks in the if statement which produces the ICE:
Note: The patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
15 matches
Mail list logo
