https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Are you able to produce a traceback?
valgrind unfortunately does not provide any hints.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-05
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95374
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I didn't write the code, but for more context:
trans.h has:
#define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_LBOUND(node, dim) \
(TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC(node)->lbound[dim])
#define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_UBOUND(node,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted for review here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054499.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.4.1, 8.3.1
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95504
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[PDT] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 48679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48679=edit
Joint patch to fix the fallout reported in pr95530 and pr95537
Here's a clean patch that should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias,
are you still planning a backport to 9-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95088
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95088
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054479.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following code:
module mod
contains
subroutine init
end subroutine
end module
module init
use mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96224
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90112
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96086
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96224
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Could you be more explicit about what you would like?
How about:
mod::init ()
or
mod.init ()
to indicate the relevant namespace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89574
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70913
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92091
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> Am I correct to understand that #include is handled by the preprocessor?
Yes.
Other compilers always show the path to the included f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 88379, which changed state.
Bug 88379 Summary: [8/9 Regression] [Coarray] ICE with allocatable coarray,
class and associate in resolve_assoc_var, at fortran/resolve.c:8750
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 88379, which changed state.
Bug 88379 Summary: [8/9 Regression] [Coarray] ICE with allocatable coarray,
class and associate in resolve_assoc_var, at fortran/resolve.c:8750
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88379
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96071
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Isn't that almost exactly a dup of PR92967? (Except for integer <-> real)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While looking at PR91963, I found that non-constant KIND arguments are not
properly diagnosed.
The test:
! { dg-do compile }
!
program p
implicit none
integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|IEEE_FMA is missing from|[F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> Maybe the issue is related to PR87711, where the optional KIND argument
> causes havoc with the elementalness of an intrinsic. (There it is LE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Long from comment #5)
> The original intent of adding the KIND argument was because some
> implementations used a 32-bit integer for the result, and it is po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82721
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-October/055169.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Please see PR96983 for the fallout.
Note that my bandaid fix was rejected in favor of a "real solution" for
powerpc*. See the other PR and the Fortran ML for background.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Untested fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
index 3b3bd8629cd..9e9898c2bbf 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index a210f9aad43..096108f4317 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
@@ -16476,6 +16507,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-October/055235.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30802
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97547
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98445
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85877
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Digging some more, it appears that the logic in resolve.c is incomplete.
There is some inconsistency between what is dealt with in resolve_symbol
and in resolve_fl_procedure.
resolve_symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
According to the tree-dump, adding a
print *, res% unit
to the function body invokes the implicit initializer, while the line
res = t()
actually invokes the initializer effectively twice!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98445
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> Should be closed as invalid as the original code contains a number
> of issues caused by invalid code.
Steve, stop it!
My reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88356
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891
Bug 89891 depends on bug 78746, which changed state.
Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 78746, which changed state.
Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891
Bug 89891 depends on bug 89661, which changed state.
Bug 89661 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_61.f90 -O (internal compiler
error)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98017
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97977
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49687=edit
Untested patch (proof of concept)
Here's a possible patch that retries after short reads.
Not regtested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95342
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> Seems like that, if nbyte <= MAX_CHUNK, we do not take account of the
> possibility of a short read.
Yes, that seems to be the better/right place.
401 - 500 of 2572 matches
Mail list logo
