https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39304
Bug 39304 depends on bug 34640, which changed state.
Bug 34640 Summary: ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39304
Bug 39304 depends on bug 34640, which changed state.
Bug 34640 Summary: ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39304
Bug 39304 depends on bug 34640, which changed state.
Bug 34640 Summary: ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39304
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-24 08:13 ---
Subject: Bug 39304
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jan 24 08:10:47 2010
New Revision: 156195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156195
Log:
2010-01-24 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-24 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I think there are actually two issues - one is the SPAN/array descriptor
issue, which causes an ICE if one calls the specific function directly, cf.
PR 42851 for the ICE I get there.
I
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-24 23:31 ---
I think the patch in comment #11 caused pr42858. Also the tests in comment #1
and #4 give a segmentation fault:
(gdb) run pr39304_1.f90
The program being debugged has been started already.
Start it from the
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 17:59 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
See previous comment - this should be suspended with PR38471. It puts the
pressure on me to start on the array descriptor work:-(
I think there are actually two issues - one is the
--- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-11 07:10 ---
Further reduced testcase
MODULE deriv_class
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: n = 3
TYPE func
REAL :: value, x(n), xx(n*(n+1)/2)
END TYPE func
INTERFACE value
MODULE PROCEDURE value_array
END INTERFACE
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-11 11:56 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Further reduced testcase
looking a this more, this testcase really looks different from what Paul
suggested in comment #6 (i.e. there is no pointer to the component of an array
of derived
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-13 14:19 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I think that the starting point should be a still further reduced testcase;
remove the function matmul_k21, or rename the module function SD to SD0 for
example, and you will get a segfault
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-13 14:22 ---
See previous comment - this should be suspended with PR38471. It puts the
pressure on me to start on the array descriptor work:-(
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-25 18:30 ---
Confirm. Also works with NAG f95. It fails with 4.1 to 4.4 and thus it does not
seem to be a regression.
It fails in spec_dimen_size for dimen=1, as-rank=1. Some more debugging
information from gfc_array_dimen_size:
14 matches
Mail list logo
