Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

2024-04-20 Thread Harald Anlauf
Hi Paul! On 4/20/24 09:54, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: subroutine sub implicit none real, external :: x real :: y(10) integer :: kk print *, [real(x(k))] ! print *, [real(y(k))] end This is another problem, somewhere upstream from resolve.cc, which I have just

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

2024-04-20 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Hi Harald, > > the patch is OK, but I had to manually fix it. I wonder how you managed > to produce: > Yes, I had to use --whitespace fix when I reapplied it a few minutes ago. > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 > I had followed comment 1 in the PR and wrongly named the

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

2024-04-19 Thread Harald Anlauf
Hi Paul, the patch is OK, but I had to manually fix it. I wonder how you managed to produce: diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 new file mode 100644 index 000..4dcad47e8da --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90

[Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

2024-04-19 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Hi All, This is a more or less obvious patch. The action is in resolve.cc. The chunk in symbol.cc is a tidy up of a diagnostic marker to distinguish where the 'no IMPLICIT type' error was coming from and the chunk in trans-decl.cc follows from discussion with Harald on the PR. Regtests fine. OK