https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #36 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I can confirm that the push by Paul, 297363774e6a5dca2f46a85ab086f1d9e59431ac,
does fix all compilations and tests in our code and test suite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #35 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:297363774e6a5dca2f46a85ab086f1d9e59431ac
commit r11-7880-g297363774e6a5dca2f46a85ab086f1d9e59431ac
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #34 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #33)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #32)
> > Ready for merge?
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Daytime work intervened. I will submit to the list today.
>
Great!
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #33 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #32)
> Ready for merge?
Hi Juergen,
Daytime work intervened. I will submit to the list today.
Thanks for all your support BTW.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #32 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Ready for merge?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #31 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #30)
> Created attachment 50442 [details]
> Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem.. so far :-)
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> I think that this one does the job... it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #30 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50442=edit
Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem.. so far :-)
Hi Juergen,
I think that this one does the job... it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #29 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #28)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #27)
> > Created attachment 50432 [details]
> > reproducer, down to 6800 lines
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Stop! Yesterday's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #28 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #27)
> Created attachment 50432 [details]
> reproducer, down to 6800 lines
Hi Juergen,
Stop! Yesterday's final is just fine. The problem is connected with the logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #27 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50432=edit
down to 6800 lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50431
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50431=edit
Single file reproducer, 7505 lines, no input files any more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50430
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50430=edit
reproducer for another model pointer, final for 2021-03-19-03:22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #24 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Please have a look at my final reproducer. Is that feasible?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #23 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50429
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50429=edit
first ok-ish reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #22 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50428=edit
bit smaller reproducer, not yet ideal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50427=edit
remaing false positive detection (long test)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #20 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Looks like there is still one more case. One of our unit tests is still failing
with this patch. I will report more soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Good morning all,
I have attached the revised patch and an additional testcase. I had totally
forgotten about the class pointer gotcha.
OK for master?
Paul
Fortran: Fix runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #15)
> > LGTM. It's by Paul. He simply needs to get the testcase's dg-foo right...
> > ;-)
>
> Now I'm confused. So you consider the fix ok? Will it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> > Cool, thanks for the quick reaction, Paul. Maybe Harald can have a look at
> > it as well :D
>
> LGTM. It's by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> Cool, thanks for the quick reaction, Paul. Maybe Harald can have a look at
> it as well :D
LGTM. It's by Paul. He simply needs to get the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #9)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
>
> >
> > Paul
>
> $ gfortran -fcheck=pointer repro.f90
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
>
> Paul
$ gfortran -fcheck=pointer repro.f90
reuter@Manwe:~/local/packages/whizard/trunk/_build_flags/RT_20210315$ ./a.out
At line 38 of file repro.f90
Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> Actually, the last example missed a line that I overeagerly deleted too
> much. This one is the correct reproducer:
> module m
> implicit none
> private
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #3)
> Here is a shorter reproducer, and this time it is the -fcheck=pointer that
> leads to the problem. I was able to reproduce this to 80 lines, leading to
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Actually, the last example missed a line that I overeagerly deleted too much.
This one is the correct reproducer:
module m
implicit none
private
public :: m_t
type :: m_t
private
end type m_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50393=edit
New short reproducer, this time consistent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50391|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50391
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50391=edit
Short reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50389=edit
First (large) reproducer to play with, reducing atm
35 matches
Mail list logo
