[Bug fortran/59398] New: Wrong bounds for allocatable result and for

2013-12-05 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com The lower bounds of the result of an allocatable array-valued function are always set to 1. Also, I discovered that if LHS is allocated and has the same size as RHS, the bounds are not changed

[Bug fortran/59398] Wrong bounds for allocatable result and for

2013-12-05 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Losilla loximann at gmail dot com --- There should be no need to deallocate. From the excerpt you copied: If the variable is an allocated allocatable variable, it is deallocated if expr is an array of different shape

[Bug fortran/59398] Wrong bounds for allocatable result and for

2013-12-09 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Losilla loximann at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3) OK, so we seem to agree that gfortran is not assigning the correct bounds, right? shape(-3:3) == shape (-2:4) == shape(1:7) Shape

[Bug fortran/57145] New: [OOP] Faulty Actual argument must be polymorphic error

2013-05-02 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57145 Bug #: 57145 Summary: [OOP] Faulty Actual argument must be polymorphic error Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/59398] Wrong bounds for allocatable result and for

2014-01-08 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398 --- Comment #8 from Sergio Losilla loximann at gmail dot com --- Steve argues that it does not say whether its actual bounds are a characteristic. If you assume that only the shape matters, then the gfortran behavior is not a bug. I think

[Bug fortran/55960] [OOP] ICE in replace_comp, at fortran/expr.c:4356

2014-02-04 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55960 --- Comment #6 from Sergio Losilla loximann at gmail dot com --- Well, a very similar case, with a non-abstract type throws an ICE with gfortran 4.8.1: module Foo_class type :: Foo integer :: n contains procedure :: n2

[Bug fortran/60091] New: Misleading error messages in rank-2 pointer assignment to rank-1 target

2014-02-06 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com Compiler version: 4.9.0 20130917 (experimental) [trunk revision 202647] Test program: program test real, target :: a(9)=1. real, pointer :: p

[Bug fortran/60144] New: Misleading error message when missing then after if and else if

2014-02-11 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com Compiler version: GNU Fortran (Ubuntu 20130917-1ubuntu1) 4.9.0 20130917 (experimental) [trunk revision 202647] Test program: program ifelif

[Bug fortran/60144] Misleading error message when missing then after if and else if

2014-02-11 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60144 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Losilla loximann at gmail dot com --- (In reply to kargl from comment #1) How is the compiler suppose to know that the programmer may have meant program ifelif if (.TRUE.) i = 42 if (.FALSE

[Bug gcov-profile/88045] New: Call to std::accumulate causes gcov to crash

2018-11-15 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
: gcov-profile Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 45012 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45012=edit Minimum reproducible example g

[Bug gcov-profile/88045] Call to std::accumulate causes gcov to crash

2018-11-16 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88045 --- Comment #3 from Sergio Losilla --- I see, thanks. Well then, I guess I'll stick to the workaround. Good to know it is already fixed in version 9.

[Bug c++/93728] New: First half of warning message suppressed because code pointed to is in system header

2020-02-13 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 47833 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47833=edit Minimal reproducible exam

[Bug gcov-profile/96010] std::make_tuple called over multiple lines reports lines as "not run"

2020-07-01 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96010 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Losilla --- On a side note: are these bug reports I am sending useful in their current form? Anything else that I can do to help? (Other than actually fixing them, because I feel awfully unqualified to even start

[Bug gcov-profile/95994] Line containing "do" reported as "not run"

2020-06-30 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95994 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Losilla --- Oh my, my apologies about the duplicates. There was an issue with the website, I was just getting an error back: -- Software error: Invalid Content-Type 'subtype' parameter at

[Bug gcov-profile/96010] New: std::make_tuple called over multiple lines reports lines as "not run"

2020-06-30 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
ty: normal Priority: P3 Component: gcov-profile Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- I hope that the gcov file is self-explanatory:

[Bug gcov-profile/95957] New: All lines except for the last one in multiline constructor reported as not run

2020-06-29 Thread loximann at gmail dot com
: normal Priority: P3 Component: gcov-profile Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Source code: #include #include #include int main(int argc, char

[Bug c++/102084] Segfault when lambda is missing return type

2021-08-26 Thread loximann at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102084 --- Comment #6 from Sergio Losilla --- Thank you for taking the time in explaining it, appreciated :-)

[Bug c++/102084] Segfault when lambda is missing return type

2021-08-26 Thread loximann at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102084 --- Comment #4 from Sergio Losilla --- I see, thanks! The second version (constant_ref) which returns the reference to the captured does not trigger the sanitizer, so returning a reference to that is valid?

[Bug sanitizer/102095] New: Returned reference to temporary not caught by -fsanitize=undefined

2021-08-27 Thread loximann at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin

[Bug c++/102084] New: Segfault when lambda is missing return type

2021-08-26 Thread loximann at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following program crashes: -- #include #include #include template std::function constant(const T&am

[Bug c++/103133] New: Binary built with -static using std::thread crashes

2021-11-08 Thread loximann at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: loximann at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following program crashes when built with -static on Fedora 35: #include int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { std::thread foo