[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2009-11-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-30 10:40 ---
Fixed for 4.5.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
  Known to work||4.5.0
 Resolution||FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530

[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2009-11-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-30 10:39 ---
Subject: Bug 38530

Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 30 10:39:36 2009
New Revision: 154778

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154778
Log:
2009-11-30  Richard Guenther  

PR middle-end/42119
PR fortran/38530
* expr.c (expand_expr_addr_expr_1): Properly expand the initializer
of CONST_DECLs.

* gfortran.dg/pr42119.f90: New testcase.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42119.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/expr.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530

[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2009-11-21 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 


--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-11-21 20:46 ---
This PR and PR42119 are fixed by the patch in comment #1 of PR42119 without
regression. It also fixes the test in comment #7 pf PR34199.

As far as I can understand the comment

   /* ??? This should be considered a front-end bug.  We should not be
  generating ADDR_EXPR of something that isn't an LVALUE.  The only
  exception here is STRING_CST.  */

there is something wrong in gfortran. Is the patch in comment #2 a step in the
right direction?

As a side note, it would be nice to have the companion C code to have an
executable test in the manual.


-- 

dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530

[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2009-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-20 18:05 ---
*** Bug 42119 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nvab at ibrae dot ac dot ru


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530

[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2008-12-23 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #2 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-23 23:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=16976)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16976&action=view)
the patch I'm working on

(In reply to comment #1)
> explanation http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00137.html
> 
I think I was wrong there. 
We can create constants for *loc results. 

The attached patch fails on loc_1.f90 with an assembler message saying that
targ doesn't exist. 
It looks like a mangling problem only, but I fail to understand why it happens. 
I should probably defer this to 4.5 and commit to 4.4 the same workaround as
PR35150.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530

[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2008-12-15 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #1 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-15 13:42 ---
explanation http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00137.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530

[Bug fortran/38530] ICE with the example for c_funloc

2008-12-15 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |mikael at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-12-15 13:28:36
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38530