https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another variant, which removes the naming collision (and dimension attribute)
in the character components, in order to make things clearer:
program main_ut
implicit none
type :: data_t
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> Or maybe we should rather call the finalization wrapper for the type
> 'data_t'
That's also what's happening to 'par_real' in the following case:
subroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> Another variant, which removes the naming collision (and dimension
> attribute) in the character components, in order to make things clearer:
>
>
> program m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #5)
> > Here is the promised reduced test case, 80 lines, and I do believe that this
> > is most likely causing the issues of all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> The problem seems located to the file evaluators_uti.f90 and occurred
> between revisions r243430 (2016-12-08, OK) and r243621 (2016-12-13,
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The problem seems located to the file evaluators_uti.f90 and occurred
> between revisions r243430 (2016-12-08, OK) and r243621 (2016-12-13,
> segfault).
Could it be r243483 (pr61767)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #12)
> r243483:
> 2016-12-09 Janus Weil
>
> PR fortran/61767
> * class.c (has_finalizer_component): Fix this function to detect only
> non-poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #15)
> r243479 shows no runtime error, r243480 does.
The dump with r243479 is identical to 6.2. So r243480 does actually improve the
situation, but fails to handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #17 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, being the offender I tried to have a look into as soon as possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #18 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Correct me when I am wrong, but should the pointer component really be
finalized automatically? I am in the opinion that pointer components are not
finalized automatically. That is one of the signi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 40616 [details]
> Preliminary patch
I confirm that this patch fixes all the tests in this PR without regression.
> Here is our full test suite:
> http://www.desy.de/~reuter/whiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #20)
> > Created attachment 40616 [details]
> > Preliminary patch
>
> I confirm that this patch fixes all the tests in this PR without regression.
>
> > Here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Finally rt_error --check radiation_generator failed with
> >
> > Running test: radiation_generator_1
> > Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory
> > reference.
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #23 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I filed another PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #24 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #23)
> I filed another PR:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79334
sorry, this was a typo, the correct one is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #25 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #26 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Sun Feb 5 12:02:15 2017
New Revision: 245191
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245191&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2017-02-05 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #27 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting on week for regression reports before closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #27)
> Waiting on week for regression reports before closing.
From our side this is ok. No regression, except for the special problem
in PR79430 most likely unrelated to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
23 matches
Mail list logo
