http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #31 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-10-27 09:35:07 UTC ---
I've posted the generic issue as Bug 46196
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #30 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-10-26 15:27:27 UTC ---
I've realized today, that the sample code is actually invalid. If you look at
lines 488 and 681 in arguments.f03, you'll see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #22 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-10-24 10:17:00 UTC ---
Yes, I still get the error with later revisions. I am using an amd64 machine
with open SuSE 11.2. Here are some updates of my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
11:10:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Yes, I still get the error with later revisions.
:-(
* Not putting use statements into proper order doesn't mean that the error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
11:56:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Still, this is not what I take to mean works for me.
WORKSFORME means that it works for us. If it was working for you, I assume you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
12:02:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 22140
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22140
Version of the test that works for me.
Just to be clear. Can you check that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
15:14:59 UTC ---
I did not see any reply to my comment #19. Isn't it obvious there is something
wromg at that point in the module.c ? Did I miss something in the thread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #27 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
15:48:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
I did not see any reply to my comment #19. Isn't it obvious there is
something
wromg at that point in the module.c ?
No, it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
18:56:49 UTC ---
There is a quality of implementation issue going on here. Our goal has always
been zero leaks. The reason? These errors can and do mask other things
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #29 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-24
19:59:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
There is a quality of implementation issue going on here. Our goal has always
been zero leaks. The reason? These errors can and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
14:04:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I fail to reproduce the ICE with today's r165769. Hans, are you still getting
this error?
Frankly, I already got lost in comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-10-01 06:52:14 UTC ---
Thank you, now I understand the difference. The correct invocation does not
supply any new information.
Revision 20100928 compiles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #16 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-10-01 07:57:44 UTC ---
I have checked the f90/f03 combination again, there DEFINITELY IS A CORRELATION
between mixing dialects and the error. Using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-01
08:13:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I have checked the f90/f03 combination again, there DEFINITELY IS A
CORRELATION
between mixing dialects and the error. Using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
On Friday 01 October 2010 16:39:35 jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
2010-10-01 14:39:23 UTC --- This look suspicious: valgrind on f951
No, it is unrelated. It happens on the most simple testcases like:
end
It can be circumvented by the following patch. But it is harmless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-09-30 07:37:46 UTC ---
So it works with 4.6.0 20100924, but it still doesn't work with 4.6.0 20100921.
Unfortunately, I cannot use the latest revision,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
09:24:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
So it works with 4.6.0 20100924, but it still doesn't work with 4.6.0
20100921.
Unfortunately, I cannot use the latest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-09-30 13:03:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Actually, I am confused: From that comment it sounds as if 20100921 does not
have the bug 45746 - but it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
But I have run valgrind now. It was the first time, so I don't understand the
result. Is it somehow the fault of my hardware/OS?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-09-29 11:49:11 UTC ---
My makefile is now:
FC=gfortran
FFLAGS=-ffree-form -ffree-line-length-0 -I. -L.
all: common.o common_module.mod arguments.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-29
12:44:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
The result:
gfortran -ffree-form -ffree-line-length-0 -I. -L. -c kinds.f90 -o kinds.o
gfortran -ffree-form -ffree-line-length-0
28 matches
Mail list logo
