http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #14 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-10 11:36:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Salvatore, I would say we can close this PR (as a duplicate of PR54784),
> unless
> the runtime error with 4.6 on darwin is a regression (whi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 10:29:27 UTC ---
Salvatore, I would say we can close this PR (as a duplicate of PR54784), unless
the runtime error with 4.6 on darwin is a regression (which I currently can not
check).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 22:10:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> All three cleanly compile comment 0, while only the 4.7 version fails to
> compile commment 1 with some ICE:
>
> c1.f90: In Funktion »testsource
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 19:41:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Ok, I just tried this one on x86_64-apple-darwin11.3.0, where I have three
> (non-release) versions of gfortran lying around:
>
> gcc-Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 17:13:05 UTC ---
Ok, I just tried this one on x86_64-apple-darwin11.3.0, where I have three
(non-release) versions of gfortran lying around:
gcc-Version 4.6.0 20110202 (experimental) [trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 16:15:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I can confirm that patching my 4.7.2 source tree fixes not just the test case
> but also the code it was derived from, on x86_64-linux.
Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #8 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 16:02:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > I am getting the following output from the test case. It seems wrong, I
> > > do n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 14:47:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, this may be more complicated. On x86_64-apple-darwin10, compiling the
> attached test with 4.6.3 gives:
> [...]
> a.out(97528) malloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #6 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 14:46:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I am getting the following output from the test case. It seems wrong, I do
> > not
> > see why allocating the pol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #4 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 11:03:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > And it is also a regression, as it works on 4.6.3: ...
>
> Well, this may be more complicated. On x86_64-apple-darwin10, compiling the
> at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-09
10:48:30 UTC ---
> And it is also a regression, as it works on 4.6.3: ...
Well, this may be more complicated. On x86_64-apple-darwin10, compiling the
attached test with 4.6.3 gives:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #2 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 10:37:13 UTC ---
And it is also a regression, as it works on 4.6.3:
---
[sfilippo@jacobi bug34]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #1 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 10:02:41 UTC ---
Interestingly, taking out the outer container p% makes the code work...
---
[sfilippo@jacobi bug34]$ gfo
15 matches
Mail list logo
