[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-19 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-18 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin --- Author: mikael Date: Sun Oct 18 15:01:03 2015 New Revision: 228945 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228945&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR fortran/67721 PR fortran/67818 Backport from ma

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-04 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > I have looked at the r222477 patch more in details, and it seems reasonable > after all. > Moreover, Paul suggested a backport when he approved it. > So I think I'll go

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-03 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-10/msg00339.html.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-03 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Do you have a patch I can try? See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00110.html.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3) > > So the question is whether r222477 should be backported, or r228361 > > reverted. > > I have looked at the r222477 patch

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-03 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3) > So the question is whether r222477 should be backported, or r228361 reverted. I have looked at the r222477 patch more in details, and it seems reasonable after all

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-03 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- memcpy was fixed by Andre at r222477 on trunk. I think it fixes the regression, but I'm a little uncomfortable with backporting it, because of its medium size. So the question is whether r222477 should be back

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-02 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference. Backtrace for this error: #0 0xF769EB7E #1 0xF769DC7E #2 0xF7798BDF #3 0x8053299 in foo.3532._omp_fn.2 at alloc-comp-2.f90:? #4

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

2015-10-02 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|