http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #102 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 8, 2014 1:47:14 PM GMT+01:00, "pault at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
>Paul Thomas changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #101 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE|[4.8 Regression] ICE
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #90 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-12-13 15:13:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #89)
> Just to repeat, the ICEs are with checking enabled only (but possibly cover up
> for wong-code).
I'm indeed worried that the release branche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #89 from Richard Biener 2012-12-13
12:06:57 UTC ---
Just to repeat, the ICEs are with checking enabled only (but possibly cover up
for wong-code).
I believe the correct solution will involve implementing the proposal for
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-07-09 09:36:18 |2012-12-13 9:36:18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #86 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-30 12:30:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #84)
LTO might work for many codes, as using allocatables in derived types was not
standard Fortran90 (IIRC) and appears needed to trigger the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #85 from Mikael Morin 2012-09-26
16:06:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #84)
> (In reply to comment #83)
> > any progress on this one?
>
> Well, the patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-08/msg00150.html solves
> sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #83 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-26 06:42:59 UTC ---
Mikael, any progress on this one (BTW, the PR is not yet assigned)? It would be
great to have LTO work with Fortran in 4.8 (especially with all the inlining
improvements).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #81 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
18:37:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
> If that's valid then you can make the middle-end happy by wrapping
> the RHS inside a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR with the LHS type.
OK. will try.
I don't know yet th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #80 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-01
16:22:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
> > this%y = this%find_y() ! FAILS
> >
> > the lhs is a target, and the rhs is NOT a target, so that the middle-end
> > types
> > are different. :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-01 15:05:22 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #78 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
> 15:01:59 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #78 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
15:01:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #76)
> You mean
>
> [...]
>
> ? Yes, that also should be build_distinct_type_copy.
>
Even without that, the patch regtests cleanly (including the pr45586 tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #77 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
12:37:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #75)
> Created attachment 27919 [details]
> rough patch
>
About the patch:
The failures are mostly(all?) due to structure constructors.
Structure constructors us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #76 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-01 12:28:10 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #75 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
> 12:22:03 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #75 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
12:22:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27919
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27919
rough patch
(In reply to comment #74)
> > For variable to be type compatible for assignment, they sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #74 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 12:33:01 UTC ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
> 12:29:33 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
12:29:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #72)
> > (In reply to comment #63)
> > > That's bogus as TYPE_FIELDS
> > > is supposed to be shared amongst variant types.
> >
> > Then we'll have to revert Micha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #72 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 11:04:39 UTC ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #71 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
> 10:35:48 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #71 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
10:35:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #70)
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > So, is this a fortran front-end bug, a middle-end bug, or a lto bug ?
> > (Hint: PR 51765 is a mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #70 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 08:43:09 UTC ---
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #69 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-28
> 09:46:00 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #69 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-28
09:46:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #63)
> With a (seemingly) unrelated patch (attached to PR52097) I'm back on ICEing
> for the gfortran.dg/lto/pr45586*.f90 testcases ...
>
> Even before the adjust
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #67 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-03-12 10:15:39 UTC ---
The patch in comment #64 fixes the failures reported in pr52516 but introduces
many regressions:
=== gfortran Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes41
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Version|4.6.0
30 matches
Mail list logo
