https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo