http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #6)
Marc, I think your recently posted patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01049.html
could fix the problem with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #7)
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #6)
Marc, I think your recently posted patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #8)
Marc, looks like the fortran FE changed a lot since this bug was filed, and
there is no explicit allocate anymore, in fact the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
Ok. If you used __builtin_abort instead of _gfortran_os_error, I think my
current patch would handle it. It is hard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #10)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
Ok. If you used __builtin_abort instead of _gfortran_os_error, I think my
current patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #12 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
So S2 cannot call free (or realloc) on the pointer and then exit or call
longjmp or do an infinite loop or anything
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jh at
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-02-21 12:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
seemingly being discussed, since useful for tonto
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-02/msg00157.html
But there: it's unfortunately not possible to avoid
