https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Sep 22 08:38:31 2017
New Revision: 253091
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253091=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-09-22 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Sep 21 18:40:21 2017
New Revision: 253077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253077=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-09-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
(I wonder whether we properly handle proc-ptr-valued functions as target in
a proc-ptr assignment. Should check that ...)
Apparently this works, cf. PR 36704
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 14:52:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Here is a patch to accept the test case in comment 0:
It fails on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/associate_6.f03 -O (test for excess errors)