https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com> --- Hi Harald, After a lot of messing around, I managed to backport the patch; essentially by hand. However, two of the testcases ICEd in trans-array.cc and so there were obviously dependences that I had missed. I will not be backporting r14-1629, if for no other reason than it is not a regression but also because the amount of work that would be involved doesn't warrant it. It's a pity that I didn't keep 13-branch up to speed with mainline on the associate fixes but we will just have to live with it now. Regards Paul On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 14:32, Paul Richard Thomas < paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Harald, > > I will have a stab at backporting r14-1629 later this afternoon and will > let you know what happens. I am just rebuilding after applying the fix for > pr112407 (yes, I did add -std=f2008 :-) ). > > I don't think that there is any point in going back to 12-branch at this > point in the release cycle. > > Cheers > > Paul > > > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 21:42, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org < > gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987 >> >> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Status|NEW |ASSIGNED >> >> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- >> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5) >> > Hi Harald, >> > >> > I am pinning this one on you since it needs backporting to 13-branch, at >> > least. It also keeps the audit trail clean. >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> this one is at the top of my backport list. >> >> It depends on backporting r14-8902 (mine), and has weak conflict if >> r14-1629 (yours) is not backported, as testcase gfortran.dg/pr99350.f90 >> was introduced in that commit. >> >> I could amend backporting the fix for the current PR as well as r14-8902 >> to 13-branch by removing the changes to pr99350.f90 from the backport. >> That is likely the most simple solution, as backporting r14-1629 might >> introduce regressions. >> >> Nevertheless, the current fixes can only be backported to 13-branch, >> as some of the infrastructure changes for better error recovery after >> arithmetic errors and when array ctors are involved are to risky to >> backport to 12-branch. >> >> What do you think? >> >> -- >> You are receiving this mail because: >> You are on the CC list for the bug. > >
