Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

2016-12-12 18:37 GMT+01:00 Paul Richard Thomas : > Hi Janus, > > The patch is good - OK for trunk. Thanks, Paul. Committed as r243580. Cheers, Janus > On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Janus Weil wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I hate to ping this patch

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

Hi Janus, The patch is good - OK for trunk. Thanks Paul On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Janus Weil wrote: > Hi all, > > I hate to ping this patch once more, but somehow we need to come to a > conclusion here. > > The issue boils down to the fact that there is a piece of code

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

Hi all, I hate to ping this patch once more, but somehow we need to come to a conclusion here. The issue boils down to the fact that there is a piece of code in the gfortran code which claims that specification functions are 'constant', but I doubt that this is true. To my understanding the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

double-ping! 2016-11-26 10:45 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil : > ping! > > > 2016-11-19 10:12 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil : >> Hi all, >> >>> I previously assumed that the test case for this PR would be legal, >>> but by now I think that's wrong. The test case should be

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

2016-11-26 17:37 GMT+01:00 Dominique d'Humières : > >> Le 26 nov. 2016 à 10:45, Janus Weil a écrit : >> >> ping! >> > The patch is working has expected. Note the removed block has been introduced > by Daniel Franke at r126826. Right, thanks for the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

> Le 26 nov. 2016 à 10:45, Janus Weil a écrit : > > ping! > The patch is working has expected. Note the removed block has been introduced by Daniel Franke at r126826. Dominique.

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

ping! 2016-11-19 10:12 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil : > Hi all, > >> I previously assumed that the test case for this PR would be legal, >> but by now I think that's wrong. The test case should be rejected, and >> we already have checking mechanisms for this (see >>

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

Hi all, > I previously assumed that the test case for this PR would be legal, > but by now I think that's wrong. The test case should be rejected, and > we already have checking mechanisms for this (see > resolve_fl_variable), but apparently they are not working. > > My current suspicion is that

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

Hi Dominique, >> the attached patch fixes an ice-on-valid problem, simply by removing an >> assert. ... > > I have several instances in my test suite showing that the proposed patch > removes the ICE but generates wrong code: > > pr42359, second test, => ICE on another place > pr54613, sixth

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 78392: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5979

Hi Janus, > the attached patch fixes an ice-on-valid problem, simply by removing an > assert. ... I have several instances in my test suite showing that the proposed patch removes the ICE but generates wrong code: pr42359, second test, => ICE on another place pr54613, sixth and eighth tests,