https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
The patches have been committed.
I mean the (single) patch has been committed on the two branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Jul 25 18:51:23 2015
New Revision: 226224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226224root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix gfortran.dg/class_to_type_4.f90 deallocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:44:59 2015
New Revision: 226162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226162root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix gfortran.dg/class_to_type_4.f90 deallocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #13)
A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two functions is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
The test has been introduced at revision r220482,
That revision adds interesting comments:
/* For a function with a class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Yes, this fixes the testsuite failure for me.
For me too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #9)
The components are deallocated after the containing object.
Draft patch:
Yes, this fixes the testsuite failure for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-13 00:00:00 |2015-4-16
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
JFTR: starting with a revision in the range (221618:221635] this fails
somewhat similarly for cris-elf; the simulator reports an invalid memory
access (any optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Further reduced test:
program test
implicit none
type t
integer :: ii
end type t
type, extends(t) :: v
real, allocatable :: rr(:)
end type v
type(v) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Reduced test
program test
implicit none
type t
integer :: ii
end type t
type, extends(t) :: u
real :: rr
end type u
type, extends(t) :: v
real,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Uros and Dominique,
I'll try to get to this when I can. I have a horrible feeling that it
is the old problem of array constructors within
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
19 matches
Mail list logo
