https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 10:49:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 4 10:49:13 2011
New Revision: 178509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178509
Log:
2011-09-04 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-31 11:28:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > gfortran-4.7 -c module.f90
> > gfortran-4.7 program.f90
>
> What about
> gfortran-4.7 program.f90 module.o?
> AFAIK there is not "object" in th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-08-30 17:24:31 UTC ---
> gfortran-4.7 -c module.f90
> gfortran-4.7 program.f90
What about
gfortran-4.7 program.f90 module.o?
AFAIK there is not "object" in the *.mod files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-30 17:09:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> And indeed it seems to fix the segfault.
... and regtests cleanly.
Unfortunately, there is one more complication: When compiling the two files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 19:28:42 UTC ---
Well, the obvious patch (based on Tobias' debugging) would be:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
===
--- gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 18:29:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > > (r171654?).
> >
> > Rather not. This one only concerns type-bound procedures (of which Andrew's
> > test case has none):
>
> Sorry to be such
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-29
18:17:50 UTC ---
> > (r171654?).
>
> Rather not. This one only concerns type-bound procedures (of which Andrew's
> test case has none):
Sorry to be such a nuisance, but it is: r171653 works, r1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-29
17:39:01 UTC ---
> Oops. Did I do this? Sorry, it was not intentional ...
Apparently this happens while changing the summary(?).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-29
17:34:02 UTC ---
Why setting this pr as unconfirmed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
S
14 matches
Mail list logo
