https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 06:15:44AM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
>
> --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> Updating known-to-work/known to fail version.
>
> Paul/Steve: do you want to assign this PR to one of you?
I am of two minds as to whether or not to backport the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.0, 12.3.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a2eab6172a8067e2f63e0fa2bcd5b2190656303
commit r14-2397-g9a2eab6172a8067e2f63e0fa2bcd5b2190656303
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #4)
> The problem noted in comment 1 looks related to PR 102641 --
> automatically-inserted implicit initialization code can't cope with
> assumed-rank arrays.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
