https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106857
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106945
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is -fcheck=bounds that is required to trigger the failure.
Replacing -ftrapv by -fsanitize=undefined produces the same error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100245
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102900
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > The ICE is resolved by Jose's patch to PR100136, which was just accepted.
Update: with current mainline (PR100136 n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107031
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107031
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> gfortran's current behavior is correct.
>
>
>12.3.4.4 File position after data transfer
>
>In all other cases, the file is positioned after the rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> I think we need to expand the checking in array.cc
>
> /* Convert components of an array constructor to the type in ts. */
>
> static match
> walk_ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107054
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107054
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> Yes, that would work! I was thinking of something more complex
> such as looking at the types of the operand(s), but simplification
> probably handles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107068
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107074
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107074
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We also crash in the same place on:
program p
implicit none
procedure(real), pointer :: a
print *, merge(a, a, .true.)
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-28
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #9)
> This catches the parenthesis.
... but it is still not sufficient to handle ugly stuff like:
print *, [real :: 1, +(+(.true.))] * 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> >
> > But maybe 'z' shouldn't be of static storage duration ...
>
> No, I think it shouldn't. A shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #13)
> If we pass this check, we proceed to reduce_binary, where if one (or both)
> of the operands is an array, we do numerical evaluation for every elemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107054
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82868
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 82868, which changed state.
Bug 82868 Summary: ICE in generate_coarray_sym_init, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:5203
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82868
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102334
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102312
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100103
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100132
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53601|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> Created attachment 53651 [details]
> Revised patch
Unfortunately this regresses on gfortran.dg/pr91552.f90, e.g.
print *, 2 * [real :: 1, [2], 3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53651|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107074
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77884
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107143
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-04
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107074
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #22)
> In looking at the patch, there is a
>
>gcc_assert (op1->ts.type != BT_UNKNOWN);
>
> in reduce_binary_ac() near line 1334 and
>
>gcc_assert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is a check in expr.cc:2623 that is reached if one changes the
testcase to a subroutine, but not if it is a program:
4615 if (!attr.save && rvalue->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
4616
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried the following patch, which however regresses on a couple testcases:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
index d9d101775f6..cfc6fc055bd 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just from a purely technical point, the following would allow to trigger the
proper check, as it allows to look into arrays, and regtests OK:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> Both match type "integer", kind "4", rank "0".
>
> AFAIK, there is no other consideration than TKR to discern which function
> to call.
Yes, assuming t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7)
> I think it's in 15.4.3.4.5 Restrictions on generic declarations.
> But it's too late for me to decipher what's written there.
Tomorrow you'll discover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102275
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.4.0, 11.2.0, 11.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53692&action=edit
Patch
Check type of source expr before conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107219
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107217
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107217
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107237
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107217
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107216
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107216
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Potential patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.cc b/gcc/fortran/array.cc
index bbdb5b392fc..9bec299f160 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/array.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/array.cc
@@ -1205,6 +1205,10 @@ walk_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> Harald, I looked at your patch and agree that simplification should be done.
> I don't know why I did not do it when I wrote walk_array_constructor().
Because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> If regtesting complete ok,
This is the case.
> and Mikael doesn't find any additional problems. Please commit.
The only thing I was fearing^Wexpectin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated
> parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which
addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators
could still be used for the time being?
There is s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which
> addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators
> could s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> Like this for the first part of the test from the patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> index 9e079e42995..5e96bb9658
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated
> parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53706
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53706&action=edit
Updated patch
Here's a patch that incorporates comment#17 and comment#20 and adds a testcase
for co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader
> usage (ARITH_OP_NOT_LITERAL_VALUE is a bit long, ARITH_OP_NOT_CONSTANT is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53706|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107141
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107141
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Placing the subroutine into a module also avoids the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #27)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107272
Bug ID: 107272
Summary: ICE in gfc_compare_string and others (related to
pr107217)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107272
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107272
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107219
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107216
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87659
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.3.0, 7.5.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104330
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100132
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at archaeologic dot
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87659
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104330
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81978
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100098
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> The following example shows that bad overflow handling is a regression that
> was likely introduced in 6.x:
>
> program p
> integer, parameter :: b(0) = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105633
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105633
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here it goes: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-October/058369.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just an observation: adding to subroutine shape_cray either
save :: ptrzz
or
volatile :: ptrzz
creates sufficient confusion in the middle-end that the code seems to work.
(The code sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107317
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105633
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103474
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102241
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104352
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103776
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103778
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103634
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102332
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102332
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
601 - 700 of 2218 matches
Mail list logo