[Bug fortran/42122] [F03] -fdump-tree-original shows wrong static decl for functions with procptr argument

2020-06-14 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3de12cc548c7a37bb68ea10937709dc6385a3b2b commit r11-1299-g3de12cc548c7a37bb68ea10937709dc6385a3b2b Author: Thomas Koenig Date:

[Bug fortran/42122] [F03] -fdump-tree-original shows wrong static decl for functions with procptr argument

2019-08-14 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- Also crashes with -fdump-global-original: MAIN__ setpointer main==4365== Invalid read of size 8 ==4365==at 0x8F8B0D: gfc_traverse_gsymbol(gfc_gsymbol*, void (*)(gfc_gsymbol*, void*), void*)

[Bug fortran/42122] [F03] -fdump-tree-original shows wrong static decl for functions with procptr argument

2019-08-14 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW

[Bug fortran/42122] [F03] -fdump-tree-original shows wrong static decl for functions with procptr argument

2019-08-14 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2009-12-17 05:41:16 |2019-8-14 CC|

[Bug fortran/42122] [F03] -fdump-tree-original shows wrong static decl for functions with procptr argument

2019-03-17 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Is this eight-year old PR fixed or not? Should I close this PR as FIXED to get an answer?

[Bug fortran/42122] [F03] -fdump-tree-original shows wrong static decl for functions with procptr argument

2018-03-04 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from