Hi all,
here is a patch for an ICE-on-invalid bug, which concerns the
allocation of CLASS variables. The ICE is fixed by changing the order
of the checks which are done in gfc_match_allocate, so that an error
is triggered before the ICE can occur.
Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for
[Side note: The piece of code which I'm moving contains a FIXME
comment, which I don't quite understand, so I'm not sure whether it is
still valid. It was added by Steve in
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=145331. Does anyone
have an opinion on this?]
Possibly the comment
Hi,
Janus Weil wrote:
here is a patch for an ICE-on-invalid bug, which concerns the
allocation of CLASS variables. The ICE is fixed by changing the order
of the checks which are done in gfc_match_allocate, so that an error
is triggered before the ICE can occur.
Regtested on
Hi,
here is a patch for an ICE-on-invalid bug, which concerns the
allocation of CLASS variables. The ICE is fixed by changing the order
of the checks which are done in gfc_match_allocate, so that an error
is triggered before the ICE can occur.
Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for
Janus Weil wrote:
In any case, for those two, it does not trigger but one
gets later (resolve?) the error:
Error: Allocate-object at (1) must be ALLOCATABLE or a POINTER
Then I guess one can just remove the FIXME.
That's fine with me.
Regarding the error:
Error: Allocate-object at (1) is
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
[Side note: The piece of code which I'm moving contains a FIXME
comment, which I don't quite understand, so I'm not sure whether it is
still valid. It was added by Steve in
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=145331.
[Side note: The piece of code which I'm moving contains a FIXME
comment, which I don't quite understand, so I'm not sure whether it is
still valid. It was added by Steve in
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=145331. Does anyone
have an opinion on this?]
It's been too long! I
Attached is a third version of the patch, which I will commit soon. It
adds at least the relevant standard reference to the resolution-stage
check, too, and fixes the regressions resulting from the changed error
message.
Committed as r188335.
Cheers,
Janus
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:10:02PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
[Side note: The piece of code which I'm moving contains a FIXME
comment, which I don't quite understand, so I'm not sure whether it is
still valid. It was added by Steve in
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=145331.
