https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 15 09:13:03 2015
New Revision: 221440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221440root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-15 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 10 19:39:05 2015
New Revision: 221334
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221334root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 10 22:24:01 2015
New Revision: 221338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221338root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to homgran from comment #9)
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first
implementation
of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #7 from homgran matt at gneilson dot plus.com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation
of unlimited polymorphism.
In that case, should we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation
of unlimited polymorphism.
In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/5 Regression]' tag from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #9 from homgran matt at gneilson dot plus.com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation
of unlimited polymorphism.
In that case, should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
The ICE for the reduced test in comment 2 [...]
Started at r207986.
Huh, that was me committing a patch for PR 60234. Guess I should take a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The ICE for the reduced test in comment 2 appeared between revisions
r207428 (2014-02-03, OK) and r207996 (2014-02-21, ICE).
Started at r207986.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #3 from homgran matt at gneilson dot plus.com ---
Interesting... I've just tested Janus' reduced/modified version with GNU
Fortran (GCC) 4.8.1 20130404 (prerelease), and it does indeed compile cleanly.
However, my sample code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
13 matches
Mail list logo
