[Bug fortran/86470] [8/9/10/11 Regression] [OOP] ICE with OMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/86470] [8/9/10/11 Regression] [OOP] ICE with OMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/91862] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #5 from

[Bug fortran/79524] [9/10/11/12 Regression] valgrind error for gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fimplicit_none_2.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gs...@t-online.de

[Bug fortran/101069] ICE in gfc_resolve_expr, at fortran/resolve.c:7087

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101069 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/101084] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1124

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101084 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Setting a breakpoint in gfc_simplify_len, it appears that the substring length is not properly set: (gdb) p e->ref->type $4 = REF_SUBSTRING (gdb) p *e->ref->u.ss.start->value.in

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 50967 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50967=edit Tentativ fix This patch would fix the testcase. It is inspired by code in primar

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/100948] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_val, at fortran/trans-expr.c:9069

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100948 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug fortran/100948] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_val, at fortran/trans-expr.c:9069

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100948 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The variant with typespec and non-constant length is incorrectly rejected: program p integer :: n = 2 print *, [character(n) :: 'a', 'b'] end All versions since at least gcc-7 give

[Bug fortran/100970] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100970 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug fortran/101123] [11/12 Regression] Invalid code for MAX0 with -fdefault-integer-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101123 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/100283] [11/12 Regression] Call to MIN0 with integer(8) arguments raises an ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100283 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/101084] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1124

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101084 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target Milestone

[Bug fortran/95502] ICE in gfc_check_do_variable, at fortran/parse.c:4446

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95502 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/95501] ICE in gfc_match_pointer_assignment, at fortran/match.c:1422

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95501 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/101123] [11/12 Regression] Invalid code for MAX0 with -fdefault-integer-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101123 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Why on Earth would somebody really want to combine legacy MAX0 with IMPLICIT INTEGER*4 and -fdefault-integer-8? Reduced testcase: SUBROUTINE TEST IMPLICIT INTEGER*4 (I-N

[Bug fortran/101123] [11/12 Regression] Invalid code for MAX0 with -fdefault-integer-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101123 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Untested potential fix: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c index 73b0bcc9dea..e578449995a 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c +++ b/gcc/fortran

[Bug middle-end/100755] Error with fortran object (v11.1.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/101123] [11/12 Regression] Invalid code for MAX0 with -fdefault-integer-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101123 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #50967|0 |1 is obsolete

[Bug fortran/100656] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_present, at fortran/trans-expr.c:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-05-18

[Bug fortran/100602] [11/12 Regression] Erroneous "pointer argument is not associated" runtime error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100602 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) Looking some more into this: I couldn't find a consistent concept of setting variables to implicit-save as e.g. described in F2018 section 8.5.16 clause 4

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/100274] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- There seems to be something fishy with default initialization of function results of derived types. Looking at the attached code, I guessed the following potential reproducer: program p

[Bug fortran/100478] Type Pointer Segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100478 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #15

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Vladimir Fuka from comment #7) > This sounds like good progress and I thank you for the patch. However, > shouldn't implicitly SAVE'd variables, as e.g. the program local va

[Bug fortran/100551] [11/12 Regression] Passing return value of intrinsic to class(*) dummy argument can cause segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/100551] [11/12 Regression] Passing return value of intrinsic to class(*) dummy argument can cause segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Below fixes this PR and does not break the other testcase: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c index cce18d094a6..ebc9ea42beb 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c

[Bug fortran/100551] [11/12 Regression] Passing return value of intrinsic to class(*) dummy argument can cause segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Playing with the testcase show that the patch in comment#3 is incomplete. Next try: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c index cce18d094a6..3de53009970 100644

[Bug fortran/100551] [11/12 Regression] Passing return value of intrinsic to class(*) dummy argument can cause segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/100656] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_present, at fortran/trans-expr.c:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Using a temporary may help: subroutine s(x) character(:), allocatable, optional :: x(:) character(:), allocatable :: y(:) if ( present(x) ) then if ( allocated(x

[Bug fortran/100602] Erroneous "pointer argument is not associated" runtime error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100602 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-05-14

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- A small variation of the testcase in comment#9 suggests that there are actually two underlying issues: lack of initialization and a missing temporary. program p implicit none type fm

[Bug fortran/92065] [9/10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 --- Comment #27 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The code seems to compile with today's trunk, but still fails with 11-branch. Could one of Paul's recent commits have fixed this? If so, a backport might be nice.

[Bug fortran/100724] -fwhole-program breaks module use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100724 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.1.0, 12.0

[Bug middle-end/100755] Error with fortran object (v11.1.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Please replace the wrong specifics by the proper generic: min0 -> min max0 -> max This should work and makes the code standard conforming.

[Bug fortran/100778] [11 Regression] Get SIGFPE on simple test with -fpe-trap=invalid and SLP vectorization ON, with gfortran 11.1.0 on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||11.1.0 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/100656] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_present, at fortran/trans-expr.c:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/100602] [11/12 Regression] Erroneous "pointer argument is not associated" runtime error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100602 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|rejects-valid |wrong-code

[Bug fortran/100724] -fwhole-program breaks module use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100724 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.5.0 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/99839] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in inline_matmul_assign, at fortran/frontend-passes.c:4234

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99839 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/95502] ICE in gfc_check_do_variable, at fortran/parse.c:4446

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95502 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95501] ICE in gfc_match_pointer_assignment, at fortran/match.c:1422

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95501 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99839] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in inline_matmul_assign, at fortran/frontend-passes.c:4234

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99839 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug middle-end/100755] Error with fortran object (v11.1.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/100656] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_present, at fortran/trans-expr.c:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug tree-optimization/100778] [11 Regression] Get SIGFPE on simple test with -fpe-trap=invalid and SLP vectorization ON, with gfortran 11.1.0 on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |tree-optimization

[Bug fortran/100551] [11/12 Regression] Passing return value of intrinsic to class(*) dummy argument can cause segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/92065] [9/10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100656] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_present, at fortran/trans-expr.c:1934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch seems to fix the issue: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c index 6d38ea78273..7eeef554c0f 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c +++ b/gcc

[Bug fortran/100855] pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- If you do not care about correct rounding, you can replace sum = sum + (i ** (0.05 + n)) by sum = sum + exp (log (real(i)) * (0.05 + n)) I think __builtin_powf and powf do care. I do

[Bug fortran/100860] class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01

[Bug fortran/86115] move_alloc for class(*) containing value of type character(len=*) looses data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86115 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/86115] move_alloc for class(*) containing value of type character(len=*) looses data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86115 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looking at the dump tree, it appears that the _vptr component is properly copied, but the _len component is not. But this one is needed for unlimited polymorphics.

[Bug fortran/100194] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at fortran/trans-array.c:1351

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- We are hitting the assert 1351 gcc_assert (ss->dimen > 0); in gfc_trans_create_temp_array which does not handle assumed rank yet. (here ss->dimen = -1).

[Bug fortran/100273] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_create_module_variable, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5352

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100273 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.4 Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/100273] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_create_module_variable, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5352

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100273 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/100274] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.4 Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/100274] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch in comment#1 would turn the ICE into an accepts-invalid, since we would only get a warning instead of an error. This happens because the character length check

[Bug fortran/100274] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/100218] Allow target of the pointer resulting from the evaluation of function-reference in a variable definition context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100218 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/100275] ICE in gfc_build_null_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:417

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug fortran/100183] Segmentation fault at runtime when passing an internal procedure as argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed

[Bug fortran/86206] ICE in gfc_resolve_forall, at fortran/resolve.c:9989

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86206 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I agree that there is a strange bookkeeping issue. Swapping the order of the two functions in comment#0 makes the ICE go away. Printing forall_save, nvar, total_var in gfc_resolve_forall may

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

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)?

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

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

[Bug fortran/100183] Segmentation fault at runtime when passing an internal procedure as argument

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

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

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=edit WIP patch This patch reuses variable_check() and as a bonus fixes the declarations of the subrout

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

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

[Bug fortran/97571] long parsing phase for simple array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mark J Olah from comment #5) > Whatever is happening inside the AST evaluation in this case is not only > extraordinarily inefficient, but also apparently exponential with th

[Bug fortran/100227] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] write with implicit loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100227 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97571] long parsing phase for simple array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog --- Comment

[Bug fortran/100283] [11/12 Regression] Call to MIN0 with integer(8) arguments raises an ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100283 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||11.1.0, 12.0

[Bug fortran/100283] [11/12 Regression] Call to MIN0 with integer(8) arguments raises an ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100283 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The testcase is accepted with -fdefault-integer-8.

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to José Rui Faustino de Sousa from comment #12) > I do not have the "edit" or "take" links and if I click "Not yet assigned to > anyone" i

[Bug fortran/100158] Some issues with fortran testsuite files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100158 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The files testsuite/substr_{9,10}.f90 were moved by Tobias: r12-68-gac456fd981db6b0c2f7ee1ab0d17d36087a74dc2

[Bug fortran/100154] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/100218] Allow target of the pointer resulting from the evaluation of function-reference in a variable definition context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100218 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/70070] ICE on initializing character data beyond min/max bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/86470] [8/9/10/11 Regression] [OOP] ICE with OMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Untested patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans.c b/gcc/fortran/trans.c index a2376917635..7699e98f6ea 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans.c @@ -689,9 +689,14

[Bug fortran/97272] Wrong answer from MAXLOC with character arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97272 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bill Long from comment #10) > Still fails with 10.2.0. Can you say which release version will include the > fix? According to https://gcc.gnu.org/, gcc 10.2 was released i

[Bug fortran/99369] [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_expr, at fortran/resolve.c:7167

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

[Bug fortran/99709] [PDT] VALUE attribute for an object with nonconstant length parameter

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

[Bug fortran/96859] Wrong answer with intrinsic merge_bits

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

[Bug fortran/96012] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2558

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

[Bug fortran/99348] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.c:1286

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

[Bug fortran/99840] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_matmul, at fortran/simplify.c:4777

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

[Bug fortran/99840] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_matmul, at fortran/simplify.c:4777

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

[Bug fortran/99840] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_matmul, at fortran/simplify.c:4777

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

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >