https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > Is this configured with --enable-checking=release ? This is probably an ICE > that occurs earlier than reported with --enabled-checking=release. > Configure with --enable-checking=yes. I get the same ICE with trunk configured with ../work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc6w --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,ada,java,lto --with-gmp=/opt/mp-new --with-system-zlib --with-isl=/opt/mp-new --enable-lto --enable-plugin --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=corei7 or configured with ../p_work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc6p-229482 --enable-languages=c,c++,lto,fortran,ada,objc,obj-c++ --with-gmp=/opt/mp-new --with-system-zlib --enable-checking=release --with-isl=/opt/mp-new --enable-lto --enable-plugin --with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=core2 > It should be possible to get a more precise revision. Those two do not look > like the cause of the problem. I see the ICE with r217500, but I don't have any revision between r217100 and r217500. Note that I don't say the problem is caused by one of these revisions, they are the revision numbers given by SVN for which I see the different behaviors (Warning vs. ICE). > However, I would argue that this precise warning does not need to use > %E and it could simply use %s, which will make it less dependent on trees > and fix this bug without further changes in Fortran. Where should I do the change?
