[Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Reduced testcase: implicit none integer :: i if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10) ])) & then STOP 6 end if if (any (abs (BESSEL_YN(0, 10,

[Bug fortran/57129] [8/9/10 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug fortran/93364] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_set_array_spec, at fortran/array.c:879

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93364 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93364] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_set_array_spec, at fortran/array.c:879

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93364 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master. Read: does not ICE; just gives an appropriate error message: z1.f90:8:6

[Bug fortran/92065] [8/9/10 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 CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93834] [8/9/10 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 Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/93340] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in check_constant_initializer, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93340 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- AFAICS the code in comment#0 is non-standard: % gfc-trunk foo.f90 -std=f2018 z1.f90:2:20: 2 |character c(2) /'a', 'b'(1:1)/ |1 Error: GNU

[Bug fortran/93794] [8/9/10 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 CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/91862] [9/10 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Replacing character(3) :: a(3) = 'abc' by character(3), parameter :: a(3) = 'abc' ! No ICE also avoids the ICE.

[Bug fortran/93581] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_dataptr_offset, at fortran/trans-array.c:6951

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in

[Bug fortran/94397] [9/10 Regression] the compiler consider "type is( real(kind(1.)) )" as a syntax error since r10-7369-gc38daa7976886a59

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/94246] [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.0 Summary|[9

[Bug fortran/93366] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93366] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 48427 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48427&action=edit Update and extension of Steve's patch I've updated Steve's patch to reflect

[Bug fortran/93366] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/93366] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/94943] [10 Regression] A module does not export allocatable attribute of herein arrays.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug libfortran/94143] [9/10/11 Regression] Asynchronous execute_command_line() breaks following synchronous calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94143 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93499] ICE in gfc_zero_size_array, at fortran/arith.c:1686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93499 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/93499] ICE in gfc_zero_size_array, at fortran/arith.c:1686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93499 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-05-11 Ever

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #11) > /home/seurer/gcc/git/install/gcc-test/bin/gfortran -c -o > module_ra_cam.fppized.o -I. -I./netcdf/include -I./inc -m64 -O0 -g3 > -mcpu=po

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #19) > There's some stuff above this in the module but this is the part that shows > the error and I think it contains all the declarations. >

[Bug fortran/95138] ICE on transfer to unlimited polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95138 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-5-14 CC

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 --- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- A patch based on comment#15 has been posted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054321.html

[Bug fortran/95138] ICE on transfer to unlimited polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95138 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Another datapoint: inserting select type (o) type is (integer) print *, transfer(o, v) end select prints the right thing: 1 2 3 Also note the possibly

[Bug fortran/95191] Hang in WAIT with a bad ID= value if threading specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95191 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Priority|P3

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 95053, which changed state. Bug 95053 Summary: [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide() https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug fortran/95053] [11 regression] ICE in f951: gfc_divide()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/94361] Memory leak in nested types with final

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.1.1, 11.0, 7.4.1, 8.2.1

[Bug fortran/94361] Memory leak in nested types with final

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/94361] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Memory leak in nested types with final

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||6.5.0, 7.2.0, 7.4.0, 8.1.0

[Bug fortran/95195] gfortran poorly handles a program error of writing a namelist to an unformatted file.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95195 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/95195] gfortran poorly handles a program error of writing a namelist to an unformatted file.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95195 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |libfortran

[Bug fortran/95106] Bogus warning from module with long name and an equivalence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95106] Bogus warning from module with long name and an equivalence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Something like diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-common.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-common.c index bf163bc4f52..06313873002 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-common.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-common.c

[Bug fortran/95106] Bogus warning from module with long name and an equivalence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/94361] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Memory leak in nested types with final

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95106] Bogus warning from module with long name and an equivalence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug libfortran/95195] gfortran poorly handles a program error of writing a namelist to an unformatted file.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95195 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/95323] ice in compute_live_loop_exits, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:247

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/95089] [Coarray] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:2843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25

[Bug fortran/95089] [Coarray] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:2843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95089] [Coarray] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:2843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch submmitted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054385.html

[Bug tree-optimization/95323] ice in compute_live_loop_exits, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:247

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95089] [Coarray] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:2843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug libfortran/95195] gfortran poorly handles a program error of writing a namelist to an unformatted file.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95195 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug libfortran/95104] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault on a legal WAIT statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95104 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/95104] [9/10/11 Regression] Segfault on a legal WAIT statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95104 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #6

[Bug fortran/95090] ICE: identifier overflow: 129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-05-26

[Bug libfortran/95104] [9/10 Regression] Segfault on a legal WAIT statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95104 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11 Regression]|[9/10 Regression] Segfault

[Bug libfortran/95104] [9/10 Regression] Segfault on a legal WAIT statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95104 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95090] ICE: identifier overflow: 129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/95373] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in build_reference_type, at tree.c:7942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/primary.c b/gcc/fortran/primary.c index d73898473df..67105cc9ab1 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/primary.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/primary.c @@ -1998,6 +1998,28

[Bug fortran/95090] ICE: identifier overflow: 129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #5) > gdb shows: > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0xf7aa5162 in __strlen_sse2_bsf () from /lib/libc.so.6 > #0

[Bug fortran/95090] ICE: identifier overflow: 129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution

[Bug libfortran/95104] [9/10 Regression] Segfault on a legal WAIT statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95104 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/95373] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in build_reference_type, at tree.c:7942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC

[Bug fortran/95090] ICE: identifier overflow: 129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #10) > Is there a way to get useful backtraces? "--enable-checking=yes,extra" > seems not to be enough... Maybe some "fortify&qu

[Bug fortran/95373] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in build_reference_type, at tree.c:7942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #7) > This causes regressions on arm and aarch64: Followup fix to cure this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054420.html Sorry for that.

[Bug fortran/95373] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in build_reference_type, at tree.c:7942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Master should be fixed now.

[Bug libfortran/95418] Static assert going off on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug fortran/95503] ICE in gfc_is_simply_contiguous, at fortran/expr.c:5844

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.4.1, 8.3.1 Last

[Bug fortran/95504] [PDT] ICE in transfer_array_component, at fortran/trans-io.c:2167

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95504 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE in |[PDT] ICE in

[Bug fortran/95530] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90 after r11-594

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Are you able to produce a traceback? valgrind unfortunately does not provide any hints.

[Bug fortran/95537] [11 regression] gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 since r11-670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95503] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_is_simply_contiguous, at fortran/expr.c:5844

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95500] Segfault compiling extra interface on intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95530] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90 after r11-594

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/95537] [11 regression] gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 since r11-670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug fortran/95530] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90 after r11-594

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95537] [11 regression] gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 since r11-670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95530] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90 after r11-594

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 48679 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48679&action=edit Joint patch to fix the fallout reported in pr95530 and pr95537 Here's a clean patch tha

[Bug fortran/95530] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90 after r11-594

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 --- Comment #11 from

[Bug fortran/95500] Segfault compiling extra interface on intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/95530] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90 after r11-594

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/95537] [11 regression] gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 since r11-670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95090] ICE: identifier overflow: 129

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95373] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in build_reference_type, at tree.c:7942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-05 Ever

[Bug fortran/95374] ICE: gfc_array_size failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95374 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |accepts-invalid

[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I didn't write the code, but for more context: trans.h has: #define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_LBOUND(node, dim) \ (TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC(node)->lbound[dim]) #define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_UBOUND(n

[Bug fortran/95091] ICE in gfc_hash_value, at fortran/class.c:538

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95091] ICE in gfc_hash_value, at fortran/class.c:538

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee

[Bug fortran/95088] ICE in gfc_build_class_symbol, at fortran/class.c:653

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95088 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-07

[Bug fortran/95088] ICE in gfc_build_class_symbol, at fortran/class.c:653

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95088 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch submitted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054479.html

[Bug fortran/95544] ICE in gfc_can_put_var_on_stack, at fortran/trans-decl.c:494

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95544] ICE in gfc_can_put_var_on_stack, at fortran/trans-decl.c:494

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Submitted for review here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054499.html

[Bug fortran/95091] ICE in gfc_hash_value, at fortran/class.c:538

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95611] ICE in access_attr_decl, at fortran/decl.c:9075

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95611] ICE in access_attr_decl, at fortran/decl.c:9075

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/91640] [9 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Tobias, are you still planning a backport to 9-branch?

[Bug fortran/95640] gfortran ieee_selected_real_kind returns 10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95503] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_is_simply_contiguous, at fortran/expr.c:5844

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >