[Bug fortran/63797] Bogus ambiguous reference to 'sqrt'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch regtests ok and fixes the testcase: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/module.c b/gcc/fortran/module.c index 4db0a3ac76d..b4b7b437f86 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/module.c +++

[Bug fortran/63797] Bogus ambiguous reference to 'sqrt'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/63797] Bogus ambiguous reference to 'sqrt'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Steve, can you give an example for the procedure pointer case you mentioned? I played a bit, but the only valid code that I can think of did not produce a reference to sqrt in such a way that it

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Untested patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.c b/gcc/fortran/check.c index 82db8e4e1b2..df4409840d5 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/check.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/check.c @@ -5730,6 +5731,15 @@

[Bug fortran/99111] [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:7336

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99111 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug fortran/95682] [9/10/11 Regression] Default assignment fails with allocatable array of deferred-length strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95682 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Adding some printout after initializing the t1%x(:), do i = 1, size(t1%x) print *, len_trim (t1%x(i)), t1%x(i) end do I get for gcc-8: 5 three 5 three

[Bug fortran/99147] Sanitizer detects heap-use-after-free in gfc_add_flavor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99147 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/99147] Sanitizer detects heap-use-after-free in gfc_add_flavor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99147 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/99147] Sanitizer detects heap-use-after-free in gfc_add_flavor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99147 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-02-18

[Bug fortran/99169] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault when passing allocatable scalar into intent(out) dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99169 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- A conservative solution simply disables the clobber: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c index 103cb31c664..ce7bfaa89e8 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c +++

[Bug fortran/99169] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault when passing allocatable scalar into intent(out) dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99169 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99169] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault when passing allocatable scalar into intent(out) dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99169 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.4.1 Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/99169] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault when passing allocatable scalar into intent(out) dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99169 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Note/workaround: the {CLOBBER} disappears if the argument to set_i is declared INOUT instead of OUT.

[Bug fortran/99169] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault when passing allocatable scalar into intent(out) dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99169 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/99206] [11 Regression] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.c:1980

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99206 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/99206] [11 Regression] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.c:1980

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99206 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- As a sidenote: print *, len (reshape (['a'], [0])) end This prints 0 for gcc-11, and the correct value 1 for 10.2.1. Do we screw up things during simplification?

[Bug fortran/99204] ICE in fold_read_from_constant_string, at fold-const.c:15441

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99204 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug fortran/99206] [11 Regression] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.c:1980

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99206 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99206] [11 Regression] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.c:1980

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99206 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid --- Comment

[Bug fortran/100218] New: Allow target of the pointer resulting from the evaluation of function-reference in a variable definition context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100218 Bug ID: 100218 Summary: Allow target of the pointer resulting from the evaluation of function-reference in a variable definition context Product: gcc Version:

[Bug fortran/100218] Allow target of the pointer resulting from the evaluation of function-reference in a variable definition context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100218 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055976.html

[Bug fortran/101871] Array of strings of different length passed as an argument produces invalid result.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101871 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- In array.c:gfc_match_array_constructor there's the following code: 1335 /* Walk the constructor, and if possible, do type conversion for 1336 numeric types. */ 1337

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11/12 Regression] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/101997] [9 regression] ICE after r9-8665 at gcc/toplev.c:326

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101997 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have run the testcase under the debugger and the longest arguments to sprintf I have found is

[Bug fortran/87737] ICE tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in remap_gimple_op_r, at tree-inline.c:923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87737 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |diagnostic,

[Bug fortran/99819] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_defer_symbol_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/87737] ICE tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in remap_gimple_op_r, at tree-inline.c:923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87737 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/93794] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_component_ref, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9 Regression] ICE in

[Bug fortran/99819] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_defer_symbol_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10 Regression] ICE in

[Bug fortran/102114] label on END statement not recognized after CONTAINS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102114 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/88486] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3401

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99818] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_tree_for_caf_expr, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2186

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/99125] [9 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (gimplify.c:15068)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9 Regression] ICE:

[Bug fortran/93925] Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a procedure pointer as argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/56985] gcc/fortran/resolve.c:920: "'%s' in cannot appear in COMMON ..."

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56985 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56985] gcc/fortran/resolve.c:920: "'%s' in cannot appear in COMMON ..."

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56985 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/93834] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in trans_caf_is_present, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:8469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/99819] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_defer_symbol_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in

[Bug fortran/102113] parsing error in assigned goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102113 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/87737] ICE tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in remap_gimple_op_r, at tree-inline.c:923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87737 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/101349] ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field, at fortran/trans-array.c:140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101349 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/101327] ICE in find_array_element, at fortran/expr.c:1355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101327 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056455.html

[Bug fortran/101327] ICE in find_array_element, at fortran/expr.c:1355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101327 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3) > I no longer have the ability to commit changes, > so I won't being submitting patches to fortran@ > and gcc-patches@ for review. I'll simply add >

[Bug fortran/101327] ICE in find_array_element, at fortran/expr.c:1355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101327 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/56985] gcc/fortran/resolve.c:920: "'%s' in cannot appear in COMMON ..."

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56985 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97571] long parsing phase for simple array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Rimvydas (RJ) from comment #13) > I agree that it is preferred to rewrite such look up table initialization, > however it is not always possible due to licensing restrictions

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99351] ICE in gfc_finish_var_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:695

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99351 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/101997] [9 regression] ICE after r9-8665 at gcc/toplev.c:326

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101997 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Can you get more details on where the buffer overflow actually occurs? I cannot reproduce it on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu even running f951 under valgrind. The original testcase in pr95091 would have

[Bug fortran/102003] New: [PDT] Length of character component not simplified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102003 Bug ID: 102003 Summary: [PDT] Length of character component not simplified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/101997] [9 regression] ICE after r9-8665 at gcc/toplev.c:326

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101997 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 51348 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51348=edit Partial backport of commit ac932bfcd21e9523fa2b880ae8138aef79da7f54 It's not that the cherry-pick went

[Bug fortran/99125] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (gimplify.c:15068)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.2.1, 12.0

[Bug fortran/83865] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1567

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93834] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in trans_caf_is_present, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:8469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/102180] New: Improve checking of assume size array spec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102180 Bug ID: 102180 Summary: Improve checking of assume size array spec Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/97589] Segementation fault when allocating coarrays.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #28 from

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97589] Segementation fault when allocating coarrays.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC|

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/100988] Missed optimization: RESTRICT missing for optional arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100988 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-09

[Bug fortran/100988] Missed optimization: RESTRICT missing for optional arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100988 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 53699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/53699] Missing "restrict" qualifier for OPTIONAL dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53699 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/85130] Substrings out of range are not rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85130 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-September/056500.html

[Bug fortran/65454] Extending both forms of relational operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65454 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/98472] internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:7352

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/98565] internal compiler error: in conv_function_val, at fortran/trans-expr.c:3950

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98565 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/87477] [meta-bug] [F03] issues concerning the ASSOCIATE statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477 Bug 87477 depends on bug 93701, which changed state. Bug 93701 Summary: ICE on associate of wrongly accessed array https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93701 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/97694] ICE with optional assumed rank class(*) argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97694 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/97723] type bound ASSIGNMENT(=) within select rank block wrongly rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/85130] Substrings out of range are not rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85130 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/97612] [F08] Structure constructor of type with nested allocatable array components fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97612 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC|

[Bug fortran/100110] Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100110 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93701] ICE on associate of wrongly accessed array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93701 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/102311] [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_enforce_clean_symbol_state, at fortran/symbol.c:4278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102311 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/102331] ICE in attr_decl1, at fortran/decl.c:8691

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > The following patch fixes the problem. It has not been regression tested. This restores the error, but for CLASS I now get: pr102331.f90:2:3: 2 |

[Bug fortran/102315] ICE tree check: expected integer_cst, have save_expr in gfc_trans_array_constructor_value, at fortran/trans-array.c:2056

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102315 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looks familiar, and I am pretty sure there's a duplicate. Removing one set of [] makes the code compile: y = [character(8) :: 'a'//trim(x), 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'] is obviously "fine".

[Bug fortran/82314] internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6972

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/82314] internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6972

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I am testing the following patch which fixes comment#0: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.c b/gcc/fortran/decl.c index 2e49a673e15..f2e8896b562 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/decl.c +++

[Bug fortran/93924] [OOP] ICE with procedure pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/20585] [meta-bug] Fortran 2003 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585 Bug 20585 depends on bug 93925, which changed state. Bug 93925 Summary: Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a procedure pointer as argument https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/99125] [9 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (gimplify.c:15068)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/92065] [9/10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/99819] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_defer_symbol_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug libfortran/102111] Segfault with associate to derived type with allocatable component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102111 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/93925] Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a procedure pointer as argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/93794] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_component_ref, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/46991] [OOP] polymorphic assumed-size actual arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46991 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/102311] [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_enforce_clean_symbol_state, at fortran/symbol.c:4278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102311 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Potential fix for comment#0: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c index bed61e2325d..54309646aad 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c

[Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > Potential fix for comment#0: I'm getting many regressions for this change. Investigating.

[Bug fortran/102369] VALUE attribute for arrays not allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102369 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- What is your stack size? Does it help if you declare a SAVEd?

[Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Seems it changed with r12-3129-gf95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a Looking at the tree dump, it appears that there is a latent issue. void

[Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10) > The problem is gone if I revert r12-3129. But then it regresses on pr98411. See for yourself compiling with -Wall. Something like diff

[Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366 --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- In decl.c:match_attr_spec we have: 5818 /* Since Fortran 2008 module variables implicitly have the SAVE attribute. */ 5819 if ((gfc_current_state () == COMP_MODULE 5820 ||

[Bug fortran/102390] New: IMPLICIT SAVE not properly implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102390 Bug ID: 102390 Summary: IMPLICIT SAVE not properly implemented Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >