Re: [Patch, Fortran, pr70397, gcc-5, v1] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

2016-03-28 Thread Andre Vehreschild
Hi Paul, thanks for the quick review. Committed to gcc-5-branch as r234507. The patch for trunk needs more polishing than expected. I hope to present it soon. Regards, Andre On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:19:11 +0200 Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Hi Andre, > >

Re: [Patch, Fortran, pr70397, gcc-5, v1] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

2016-03-27 Thread Dominique d'Humières
Andre, In order to apply the patch on a recent trunk @@ -1070,7 +1089,7 @@ gfc_copy_class_to_class (tree from, tree to, tree nelems, bool unlimited) if (unlimited) { if (from_class_base != NULL_TREE) - from_len = gfc_class_len_get (from_class_base); + from_len =

Re: [Patch, Fortran, pr70397, gcc-5, v1] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

2016-03-27 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Hi Andre, The patch looks to be fine to me for both trunk and 5-branch. Thanks for the patch. Paul On 27 March 2016 at 18:53, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > Hi all, > > and here is already the follow-up. In the initial patch a safe wasn't > commenced > before pulling the patch,

Re: [Patch, Fortran, pr70397, gcc-5, v1] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

2016-03-27 Thread Andre Vehreschild
Hi all, and here is already the follow-up. In the initial patch a safe wasn't commenced before pulling the patch, which lead to a refactoring of the new functions node to be partial only. Sorry for the noise. - Andre Am Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:49:18 +0200 schrieb Andre Vehreschild :

[Patch, Fortran, pr70397, gcc-5, v1] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

2016-03-27 Thread Andre Vehreschild
Hi all, attached is a patch to fix an ICE on allocating an unlimited polymorphic entity from a non-poly class or type without an length component. The routine gfc_copy_class_to_class() assumed that both the source and destination object's type is unlimited polymorphic, but in this case it is true