[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Mon Jan 6 11:31:34 2014 New Revision: 206355 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206355&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-01-06 Janus Weil PR fortran/59023 PR fortran/596

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|una

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch is more reasonable, I think: Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c === --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 206252) +++

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- I had a closer look at what actually changes with the patch in comment 7, and found out that the crucial part is that the patch does not set the 'ns' member of the gsymbol. This observation leads to

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 31542 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31542&action=edit patch Here is a patch which removes the ICE, although I don't actually understand why (maybe someone el

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #5) > In this range are three committs for PR 48858, which might be to blame here: > r199118, r199119, r199120. At first sight I suspect the middle one could be > the

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bur...@net-b.de --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Using an intermediate variable works around the bug. If you replace: toto = t(helper()) with i = helper() toto = t(i) where i is an integer variable, you don't have the ICE anymore.

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---