http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-03
11:33:42 UTC ---
Actually, my comment 21 was a bit premature: FROM type TO class is valid, only
FROM class TO type is invalid. Corrected at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #23 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-12-03 12:00:43 UTC ---
Yes, TYPE FROM and polymorphic TO is exactly the typical usage I have (indeed,
it also was the original test case)
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
14:32:45 UTC ---
This comment is (just) for cross reference. The patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-11/msg00217.html
fixes some MOVE_ALLOC issues, including the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:05:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 19 21:05:18 2011
New Revision: 175194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175194
Log:
2011-06-19 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-17 20:03:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jun 17 20:03:04 2011
New Revision: 175151
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175151
Log:
2011-06-17 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #15 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-05-30 09:11:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
Hm.
I see; I wonder, is this something that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-30
09:22:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
We are talking about comment 4, aren't we?
(That test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-30
09:35:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
I see; I wonder, is this something that was added in F2008 or was it present
in
F2003?
If you talk about that associate-names
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-29 21:51:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
The patch in comment #11 fixes the runtime for the tests in comments #0 and
#9.
However the other tests give a backtrace on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-29 22:19:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
I have only reported what I saw. My understanding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside |[4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-21 20:09:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
program testmv1
type bar
end type
type, extends(bar) :: bar2
end type
class(bar), allocatable :: sm
type(bar2),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-21 23:32:58 UTC ---
The patch in comment #11 fixes the runtime for the tests in comments #0 and #9.
However the other tests give a backtrace on x86_64-apple-darwin10. and
15 matches
Mail list logo
