https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> This is a 5/6 Regression. May I do the back port?
Fine with me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This is a 5/6 Regression. May I do the back port?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jul 26 22:42:49 2016
New Revision: 238774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238774=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-07-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The patch for class.c in comment 2 fixes the ICE for the first test in
comment0.
The patch for resolve.c changes the error message and the tests
allocate_class_1.f90
allocate_class_2.f90
class_2.f03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #5 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
More test files :
$ cat z5.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n = 0
integer, pointer :: q => null()
end type
type(t) :: x
print *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|