https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:28:02 2015
New Revision: 219676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219676root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/58023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jan 11 19:13:24 2015
New Revision: 219439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219439root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-11 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/58023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have finally committed the patch in comment 2 (sorry that it took so long).
The ICE on comment 0 is still there, but for consistency one should do a bit
more than shown in comment 5. Will take
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
Draft patch:
Regtests cleanly. Will commit as obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
Draft patch:
Unfortunately, this patch only fixes comment 1, but not comment 0!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment 0 can be fixed by the following additional hunk in resolve.c:
@@ -12148,7 +12147,7 @@ resolve_fl_derived0 (gfc_symbol *sym)
must have at least one argument,
