[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-18 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is fixed on trunk.  Don't know if anyone intends to back port.
Doubt it as no one has done so.

PR 78578 is irrelevant as the individual who submitted
the testcase has a typo in his/her code.

[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-19 Thread menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

--- Comment #2 from menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> The problem is fixed on trunk.  Don't know if anyone intends to back port.
> Doubt it as no one has done so.
> 
> PR 78578 is irrelevant as the individual who submitted
> the testcase has a typo in his/her code.

Thanks kargl, can you identify for which release(s) this case works correctly?

[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-19 Thread menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

--- Comment #3 from menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com ---
Also why was this bug marked as resolved / invalid? It still exists for 7.3.0
whether or not it will be resolved, and is rather serious.

[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-19 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to menospaamthereaper from comment #2)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > The problem is fixed on trunk.  Don't know if anyone intends to back port.
> > Doubt it as no one has done so.
> > 
> > PR 78578 is irrelevant as the individual who submitted
> > the testcase has a typo in his/her code.
> 
> Thanks kargl, can you identify for which release(s) this case works
> correctly?

I already have.  The problem is fixed on trunk.  The first
release with the fix will be 9.1, which should be released
in the next few weeks.

[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-19 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX

--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to menospaamthereaper from comment #3)
> Also why was this bug marked as resolved / invalid? It still exists for
> 7.3.0 whether or not it will be resolved, and is rather serious.

I choose the wrong menu item.  Changing it to WONTFIX.

The allocation/deallocation is fairly complicated.  Whether
a patch is back ported depends on the person who fixed the
bug and how difficult the back may be.  There are too many
bugs to fix and features to implement for the available
man power.

[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-19 Thread menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

--- Comment #6 from menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com ---
Thank you for the update and your hard work, kargl.

[Bug fortran/90169] Setting an allocatable variable length character array in a type incorrectly sets all members of the array

2019-04-20 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
I think it is a duplicate of pr72709.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 72709 ***