https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
A bit reduced test-case:
SUBROUTINE CLAREF(A, WANTZ, Z, ICOL1, ITMP1, ITMP2, T1, T2, V2)
LOGICALBLOCK, WANTZ
COMPLEXT1, T2, V2
COMPLEXA(LDA, *), VECS, Z(LDA, *)
COMPLEX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> > I can reproduce it. You likely named the file x.f90 (and not x.f). Please
> > try that..
>
> Aha.. Fortran such a mystery :)
Yep, all black magic. Btw. one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
> I can reproduce it. You likely named the file x.f90 (and not x.f). Please try
> that..
Aha.. Fortran such a mystery :)
> Do you want me to bisect that?
No, they'll all point to the commit which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Do you want me to bisect that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
