--- Comment #8 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 20:31
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 17:34
---
Subject: Bug 25806
Author: eedelman
Date: Tue Feb 14 17:34:07 2006
New Revision: 110989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110989
Log:
fortran/
2006-02-14 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-12 17:34
---
Subject: Bug 25806
Author: eedelman
Date: Sun Feb 12 17:34:15 2006
New Revision: 110893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110893
Log:
fortran/
2006-02-12 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 21:51
---
A slightly improved form of the patch attached here earlier has been posted to
the mailing list for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00394.html
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 20:52
---
Created an attachment (id=10777)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10777&action=view)
Patch to fix the bug.
We also get into trouble if we try to pass the result of a pointer-to-array
returning f
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 17:11
---
If I compile the original testcase with current mainline (revision 110561), the
binary dies on execution with
*** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (out): 0xbfc9d020 ***
Aborted
If I remove the line
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 16:54 ---
Shorter testcase:
program a
real, target :: storage(2)
real :: s(2)
s = x(2)
print*,s
contains
function x(n) result(t)
integer :: n
real, pointer :: t(:)
t => storage(1:n)
! allocate( t(n) )
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 16:30 ---
Confirmed, this is defintely a problem.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
