[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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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 --- a

[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/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 l

[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

[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/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) ) then

[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/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/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 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code

[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/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/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 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 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/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 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/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/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/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/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 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/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 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW 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/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&action=edit Tentativ fix This patch would fix the testcase. It is inspired by code in pr

[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/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 --- 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

[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/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/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/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/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/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 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 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/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 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 libfortran/108336] Repeatable random_numbers with openmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108336 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- There is one flaw with the testcase: when OMP_NUM_THREADS > n1, array elements threadval(n1+1:OMP_NUM_THREADS) are filled with undefined values. When I replace the line if(omp_get_thread_

[Bug fortran/108131] [10/11 Regression] Incorrect bound calculation when bound intrinsic used in size expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108131 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > > + > > + mpz_clear (do_start); > > + mpz_clear (do_end); > > +

[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/108369] FM509 Fails to compile with error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/107508] Invalid bounds due to bogus reallocation on assignment with KIND=4 characters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107508 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/108420] [13 Regression] ICE in check_charlen_present, at fortran/iresolve.cc:98

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/108421] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2862

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108421 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug fortran/108420] [13 Regression] ICE in check_charlen_present, at fortran/iresolve.cc:98

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'm regtesting the following patch which fixes both cases: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc index 711e9178ad4..33794f0a858 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/iresol

[Bug fortran/108421] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2862

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108421 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/108420] [13 Regression] ICE in check_charlen_present, at fortran/iresolve.cc:98

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/108421] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2862

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108421 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Resolution

[Bug fortran/108434] [12/13 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107214] [13 Regression] ICE: base pointer cycle detected since r13-2661-gb57abd072dd319a7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107214 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from

[Bug fortran/107397] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_arith_plus, at fortran/arith.cc:654

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary

[Bug fortran/106731] ICE on automatic array of derived type with DTIO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106731 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12

[Bug fortran/108454] ICE in gfc_trans_common, at fortran/trans-common.cc:1385

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108454 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-18

[Bug fortran/108434] [12/13 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/108501] [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2941

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23

[Bug fortran/108501] [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2941

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54330 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54330&action=edit Patch for the ICE in get_expr_storage_size

[Bug fortran/108501] [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2941

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, |ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/108502] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.cc:1295

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23

[Bug fortran/108501] [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2941

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/108502] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.cc:1295

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/108434] [12/13 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The reported issue should be fixed for gcc-13 and on 12-branch. There is another potential issue (see comment#1) which might be related to this one or not. Keeping this PR open until the

[Bug fortran/108527] [13 Regression] ICE in compare_bound_int(): Bad expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-24

[Bug fortran/108527] [13 Regression] ICE in compare_bound_int(): Bad expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > This fixes all testcases. These two helper functions can indicate > a problem occurs, so instead of asserting on (a->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) >

[Bug fortran/108529] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in transformational_result, at fortran/simplify.cc:478

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108529 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC

[Bug fortran/108528] [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_array_spec(): Array spec clobbered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/108529] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in transformational_result, at fortran/simplify.cc:478

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108529 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >