https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Wed Apr 10 21:02:02 2019
New Revision: 270268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-10 Harald Anlauf
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #24 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Wed Apr 10 20:26:44 2019
New Revision: 270265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-10 Harald Anlauf
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||srinath.parvathaneni at arm
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Apr 7 19:42:05 2019
New Revision: 270192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-07 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/89904
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
> Patch here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-04/msg3.html
Patch applied to trunk so far.
Unfortunately, I had the wrong PR in the ChangeLog (P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-04/msg3.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> > So shall I resubmit my original patch, or is Steve's comment#11 better?
>
> I'ld take Steve's conditions, but your wording for the errors!-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #18 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de ---
Am 02.04.19 um 20:48 schrieb anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org:
> I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So shall I resubmit my original patch, or is Steve's comment#11 better?
I'ld take Steve's conditions, but your wording for the errors!-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
but Thomas persuaded me to be less strict.
So shall I resubmit my or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the patch in comment 11 is quite close to the Harald's original patch
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Note that r270046 introduced the same thing into gcc 8.
Yes, and r270047 into gcc 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #13 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that r270046 introduced the same thing into gcc 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> >
> > > If you start from the full testcase, and remove - starting fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #8)
> With no f: ICE
>
> With only subroutine a and subroutine f: no ICE
Now it gets really mysterious.
If you start from the full testcase, and remove - starti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With no f: ICE
With only subroutine a and subroutine f: no ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #6)
> Actually, it is the opposite.
Oh, that is surprising.
So if you comment out subroutine f, there's no ICE?
And if you keep only subroutine a and subroutine f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, it is the opposite.
With 24-33 commented out:
seurer@makalu-lp1:~/gcc/build/gcc-test$ cat
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90
. . .
! module m
! contains
!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> and if you keep only those lines (commenting lines 6-22),
> there's no ICE?
Sorry, I meant there an ICE here on your target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #3)
> Best I can tell from poking around in gdb is that it is happening at line 32
>
> end subroutine s
>
> that's probably not much help. Sorry!
So if you co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Best I can tell from poking around in gdb is that it is happening at line 32
end subroutine s
that's probably not much help. Sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you find out which of the tests in file pr85797.f90 triggers the ICE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
27 matches
Mail list logo
