http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-17 15:30:02
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Fri Dec 17 15:29:55 2010
New Revision: 167990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167990
Log:
2010-12-17 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48887
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |domob at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776
Summary: Full implementation of variable definition contexts
(and related checks)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #16 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-24
08:10:38 UTC ---
The last commit partially implemented the missing definability checks also for
ASSOCIATE names. For the missing pieces, I opened PR 45776.
So here remains the missing pieces for ASSO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-25 14:27:27
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sat Sep 25 14:27:20 2010
New Revision: 164619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164619
Log:
2010-09-25 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/45776
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-25 14:30:58
UTC ---
This implemented all IO related checks (items 5-10), so only missing are now 14
and 15 which are the LOCK/UNLOCK related ones. These depend on implementation
of locks in PR 18918, so I
||2010.09.26 08:04:08
date||
CC||domob at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |domob at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever
||2010.09.26 08:05:10
date||
CC||domob at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |domob at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45783
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-26 19:25:55
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sun Sep 26 19:25:52 2010
New Revision: 164638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164638
Log:
2010-09-26 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/45783
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-26 19:25:55
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sun Sep 26 19:25:52 2010
New Revision: 164638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164638
Log:
2010-09-26 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/45783
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45783
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #17 from Daniel Kraft 2010-10-12
13:30:57 UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Tue Oct 12 13:30:53 2010
New Revision: 165378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165378
Log:
2010-10-12 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Kraft 2010-10-12
13:37:44 UTC ---
This commit did implement better handling for association to derived-types, but
some cases are still not handled (see the XFAIL of associate_9.f03). I wanted
to test with the code of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46122
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kraft 2010-10-22 10:44:16
UTC ---
I have to admit that I more or less copied that "check_intentin" business while
rewriting the code. It seems to "make sense", but I didn't find (and care to
find) this in the standard.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46174
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Kraft 2010-10-26 19:00:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Possible implementation scheme: vtab$t contains besides the normal type-bound
> procedures and init/size/hash also an two function points: $copy and $free,
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
Summary: ICE on valid code involving power of small integer
kinds
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
||2010.12.03 21:17:50
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |domob at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-03 21:17:50
UTC ---
Taking this on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-04 09:27:20
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sat Dec 4 09:27:17 2010
New Revision: 167453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167453
Log:
2010-12-04 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-04 09:29:31
UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. Since Tobias sees this problem also with 4.4, I will
investigate further whether we should backport to 4.5 and 4.4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-04 12:12:40
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sat Dec 4 12:12:35 2010
New Revision: 167454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167454
Log:
2010-12-04 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-05 10:09:29
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sun Dec 5 10:09:25 2010
New Revision: 167471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167471
Log:
2010-12-05 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-09 15:55:16
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Thu Dec 9 15:55:13 2010
New Revision: 167644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167644
Log:
2010-12-09 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48887
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kraft 2011-05-27 10:59:01
UTC ---
In match.c:select_type_set_tmp we have around line 4536:
if (select_type_stack->selector->ts.type == BT_CLASS &&
CLASS_DATA (select_type_stack->selector)->attr.allocatable)
gcc dot |domob at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kraft 2011-07-28 14:40:03
UTC ---
Taking this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Kraft 2011-07-29 17:00:12
UTC ---
For the record, with the original test case and -fdump-tree-original, I get:
s (integer(kind=4) & restrict nb)
{
character(kind=1) bad_rec[1][1:.bad_rec];
integer(kind=4) .bad_rec;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-02 17:55:38
UTC ---
This seems to be fixed by changing gfc_start_block in
trans-array.c:gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation to gfc_init_block. That's the
way it already was in trans-decl.c:gfc_trans_auto_char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-02 20:10:17
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Tue Aug 2 20:10:13 2011
New Revision: 177211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177211
Log:
2011-08-02 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/49885
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-02 20:15:08
UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. I will also backport to 4.6 later, and then close the PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-03
09:37:14 UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Wed Aug 3 09:37:11 2011
New Revision: 177249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177249
Log:
2011-08-03 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/49885
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
33 matches
Mail list logo
