https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60091
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Fri Mar 15 22:20:20 2019
New Revision: 269717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-15 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
The following patch fixes the ICE:
Index: trans-types.c
===
--- trans-types.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to DIL from comment #14)
> Ok, so you are still looking for a single Fortran source file using this
> feature, namely optional dummy procedure pointers, that would do something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Mar 31 18:33:51 2019
New Revision: 270045
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270045&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Mar 31 18:33:51 2019
New Revision: 270045
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270045&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Mar 31 19:08:23 2019
New Revision: 270046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Mar 31 19:08:23 2019
New Revision: 270046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Mar 31 19:21:37 2019
New Revision: 270047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Mar 31 19:21:37 2019
New Revision: 270047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88139
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to DIL from comment #20)
> Thanks for fixing this bug! Sorry, I have not had time yet to create a
> reduced non-trivial test case. Would you still like to add it later if I
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85868
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you find out which of the tests in file pr85797.f90 triggers the ICE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #3)
> Best I can tell from poking around in gdb is that it is happening at line 32
>
> end subroutine s
>
> that's probably not much help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> and if you keep only those lines (commenting lines 6-22),
> there's no ICE?
Sorry, I meant there an ICE here on your target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #6)
> Actually, it is the opposite.
Oh, that is surprising.
So if you comment out subroutine f, there's no ICE?
And if you keep only subroutine a and su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #8)
> With no f: ICE
>
> With only subroutine a and subroutine f: no ICE
Now it gets really mysterious.
If you start from the full testcase, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00099.html
but Thomas persuaded me to be less strict.
So shall I resubmit my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> > So shall I resubmit my original patch, or is Steve's comment#11 better?
>
> I'ld take Steve's conditions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-04/msg3.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89004
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Thu Apr 4 20:38:33 2019
New Revision: 270150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-04 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
> Patch here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-04/msg3.html
Patch applied to trunk so far.
Unfortunately, I had the wrong PR in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Apr 7 19:42:05 2019
New Revision: 270192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-07 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #24 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Wed Apr 10 20:26:44 2019
New Revision: 270265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-10 Harald Anlauf
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Wed Apr 10 21:02:02 2019
New Revision: 270268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-10 Harald Anlauf
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> Compiling
>
> print *, lshift(1,-1)
> end
>
> gives the following error
>
> lshift.f90:1:16:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00077.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Fri Jun 14 18:41:20 2019
New Revision: 272309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-14 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Fri Jun 14 18:41:20 2019
New Revision: 272309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-14 Harald Anlauf
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The Fortran standard imposes constraints on some arguments (e.g. SHIFT) on the
bit manipulation intrinsics (e.g. SHIFTR/SHIFTL/SHIFTA, ISHFT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Tue Jun 18 20:21:47 2019
New Revision: 272437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-18 Harald Anlauf
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Tue Jun 18 20:21:47 2019
New Revision: 272437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-18 Harald Anlauf
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch addressing the bit manipulation functions so far:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00138.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch for accepts-invalid / ice-on-invalid-code (parameter + data) part:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-March/055768.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99368
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99218
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99345
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further reduced:
DO iq = 1, nq
CALL calc_upper_fan (iq)
ENDDO
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE calc_upper_fan (iq)
INTEGER :: iq
INTEGER :: recl
INQUIRE(IOLENGTH=recl) iq
END
END
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99205
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99205
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This fixes the testcase and passes regtesting:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/data.c b/gcc/fortran/data.c
index 25e97930169..71e2552025d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/data.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/data.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99205
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I don't know fortran enough for what 'parameter' means in this context:
>
>real(double), parameter:: latt(jmax) = [(lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
> For whatever reason, the chunk in gfc_conv_intrinsic_size doesn't quite work
> correctly because the wrong message is selected. Thus a bit m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A simple one-liner on top of Paul's patch fixes it:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
index 9cf3642f694..5e53d1162fa 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As reported by Tobias Burnus in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-March/055815.html
the following code ICEs with all gcc since at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99585
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99585
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced example:
module m
type t
end type
type t2
type(t), allocatable :: my(:)
end type t2
contains
function h (x) result(z)
class(t2) :: x(:)
type(t) :: z(size(x(1)%my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99585
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually the SIZE intrinsic might be a red herring, as the following variant
does also ICE:
module m
type t
end type
type t2
integer :: n
end type t2
contains
function h (x) result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch in comment#6 generates an unexpected error:
pr99138.f90:11:2:
11 | module function f(x)
| 1
Error: Type mismatch in function result (CLASS(STAR)/CLASS(*)) between the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The check in interface.c:gfc_check_result_characteristics has an asymmetry
coming from symbol.c:gfc_type_compatible that could be evaded by swapping
arguments:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99609
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99205
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99688
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99709
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|VALUE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99369
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-23
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96859
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99348
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99817
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99839
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99839
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For reasons I do not understand,
Breakpoint 1, gfc_simplify_matmul (matrix_a=0x292bbf0, matrix_b=0x292c550)
at ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/simplify.c:4777
4777 result_columns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, now I see it. gfc_get_shape does not init the resulting shape.
The following simpler patch does the job:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
index 388aca7c38c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-March/055897.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch regtests ok and fixes the testcase:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/module.c b/gcc/fortran/module.c
index 4db0a3ac76d..b4b7b437f86 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/module.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Steve, can you give an example for the procedure pointer case you mentioned?
I played a bit, but the only valid code that I can think of did not produce
a reference to sqrt in such a way that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> which looks like a default initialization. Does sqrt need to be
> recorded into the module? If not, then your patch is probably ok.
My patch ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055935.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99255
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Replacing
class(t) :: x
by
class(t), allocatable :: x
avoids the ICE. Could be an error recovery issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100136
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We do not properly handle the VALUE attribute.
Reduced testcase:
program p
implicit none
class(*), allocatable :: d
call add_class (d)
contains
subroutine add_class (d)
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.c b/gcc/fortran/check.c
index 82db8e4e1b2..df4409840d5 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/check.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/check.c
@@ -5730,6 +5731,15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 50651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50651&action=edit
WIP patch
This patch reuses variable_check() and as a bonus fixes the declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50651|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> as ptr_returning_func() (a function reference with data pointer result) is a
> variable in the sense of the Fortran standard (F2018:R902)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> Do you think the following is the right thing?
Correction:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.c b/gcc/fortran/check.c
index 82db8e4e1b2..e1ec1c610e8 100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Cannot reproduce either with
GNU Fortran (SUSE Linux) 10.2.1 20200825 [revision
c0746a1beb1ba073c7981eb09f55b3d993b32e5c]
nor with
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210420
May need narrowing down to
401 - 500 of 2685 matches
Mail list logo
