[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8) > If regtesting complete ok, This is the case. > and Mikael doesn't find any additional problems. Please commit. The only thing I was

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #6) > Harald, I looked at your patch and agree that simplification should be done. > I don't know why I did not do it when I wrote walk_array_constructor().

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators could still be used for the time being? There is

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which > addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators > could

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11) > Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated > parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #22) > In looking at the patch, there is a > >gcc_assert (op1->ts.type != BT_UNKNOWN); > > in reduce_binary_ac() near line 1334 and > >

[Bug fortran/107075] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:461

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- There is a check in expr.cc:2623 that is reached if one changes the testcase to a subroutine, but not if it is a program: 4615 if (!attr.save && rvalue->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE 4616

[Bug fortran/107075] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:461

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I tried the following patch, which however regresses on a couple testcases: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc index d9d101775f6..cfc6fc055bd 100644 ---

[Bug fortran/100971] ICE: Bad IO basetype (7)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Just from a purely technical point, the following would allow to trigger the proper check, as it allows to look into arrays, and regtests OK: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc

[Bug fortran/66409] Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading assignment with polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > Both match type "integer", kind "4", rank "0". > > AFAIK, there is no other consideration than TKR to discern which function > to call. Yes, assuming

[Bug fortran/66409] Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading assignment with polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #4 from

[Bug fortran/66409] Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading assignment with polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7) > I think it's in 15.4.3.4.5 Restrictions on generic declarations. > But it's too late for me to decipher what's written there. Tomorrow you'll

[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/107217] ICE in gfc_arith_times, at fortran/arith.cc:715/704

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107217 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/107215] ICE in gfc_real2real and gfc_complex2complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107215] ICE in gfc_real2real and gfc_complex2complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 53692 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53692=edit Patch Check type of source expr before conversion.

[Bug fortran/107219] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.cc:1290

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107219 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/107215] ICE in gfc_real2real and gfc_complex2complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/107217] ICE in gfc_arith_times, at fortran/arith.cc:715/704

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107217 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/107215] ICE in gfc_real2real and gfc_complex2complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107215 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/107074] ICE: Bad IO basetype (8)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107074 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #53651|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/100029] ICE on subroutine call with allocatable polymorphic assumed-rank argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/100040] Wrong code with intent out assumed-rank allocatable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/102275] Assumed rank, unlimited polymorphic pointer gives incorrect behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102275 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.4.0, 11.2.0, 11.3.0

[Bug fortran/100971] ICE: Bad IO basetype (7)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100103] Automatic reallocation fails inside select rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100103 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.3

[Bug fortran/100132] Optimization breaks pointer association

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100132 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #53601|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #16) > Created attachment 53651 [details] > Revised patch Unfortunately this regresses on gfortran.dg/pr91552.f90, e.g. print *, 2 * [real :: 1, [2], 3]

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17) > Like this for the first part of the test from the patch: > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc > index

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11) > Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated > parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 53706 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53706=edit Updated patch Here's a patch that incorporates comment#17 and comment#20 and adds a testcase for comment

[Bug fortran/100971] ICE: Bad IO basetype (7)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #53706|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24) > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader > usage (ARITH_OP_NOT_LITERAL_VALUE is a bit long, ARITH_OP_NOT_CONSTANT is a

[Bug fortran/107141] ICE: Segmentation fault (in contains_struct_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107141 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Placing the subroutine into a module also avoids the error.

[Bug fortran/107141] ICE: Segmentation fault (in contains_struct_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107141 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at fortran/constructor.c:103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483 --- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #27) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #25) > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24) > > > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has

[Bug fortran/107272] New: ICE in gfc_compare_string and others (related to pr107217)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107272 Bug ID: 107272 Summary: ICE in gfc_compare_string and others (related to pr107217) Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/107054] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_unpack, at fortran/simplify.cc:8461

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107054 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.cc:2243

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #13) > If we pass this check, we proceed to reduce_binary, where if one (or both) > of the operands is an array, we do numerical evaluation for every

[Bug fortran/82868] ICE in generate_coarray_sym_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5203

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82868 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.5 Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/83700] [Meta-bug] Fortran Coarray issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700 Bug 83700 depends on bug 82868, which changed state. Bug 82868 Summary: ICE in generate_coarray_sym_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5203 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82868 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/102334] [12/13 Regression] ICE in trans_associate_var, at fortran/trans-stmt.c:1794 since r12-1482-g1de31913d20a467b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102334 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/102312] [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_dtype_rank_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:1558 since r9-5424-g92f3a180aaf6f3cd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102312 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug fortran/99349] ICE in match_data_constant, at fortran/decl.c:426

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/106817] clobber ordering problem when an actual intent(in) argument depends on the value of an intent(out) argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/77652] Invalid rank error in ASSOCIATED when rank is remapped

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77652 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have pushed a relaxed version of the checks as agreed upon on the ML. As compilers seem to differ here (we are now closer to Crayftn and Nvidia), and as suggested by Toon, Mikael plans to

[Bug fortran/107444] ICE on character, value, optional dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- It appears that there is also confusion about the procedure decl. This is demonstrated by: program p call s() call s('') ! Actual argument is too short, reject? call s('a') call

[Bug fortran/107444] ICE on character, value, optional dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/107444] ICE on character, value, optional dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Regarding ABI questions, I've inquired on the ML: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-November/058410.html

[Bug fortran/107331] Extension and assigning of type results in GNU internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107331 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug fortran/69604] ICE in gfc_add_modify_loc, at fortran/trans.c:159

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid,

[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 Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11 Regression]

[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); > > + mpz_clear (do_step); > >

[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

[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 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

[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

[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/108233] New: [Coarray] bcast to non-allocatable COMPLEX scalar coarray may generate wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108233 Bug ID: 108233 Summary: [Coarray] bcast to non-allocatable COMPLEX scalar coarray may generate wrong result Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/69604] ICE in gfc_add_modify_loc, at fortran/trans.c:159

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54006 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54006=edit Modified testcase I found that I get a hang on my system when I specify -fopenmp. It appears that there

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #15) > --- snip --- > > Can you please verify? > > Yes, this fixes the test case. OK, thanks for confirming. >

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to john.harper from comment #18) > An interesting problem! But I thought my original test case did not have > recursive I/O because tstuff and fstuff each print something in the >

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #19) > I don't recall having seen a mentioning in the standard of the order of > evaluation of different function (or subroutine) arguments. Do you? The

[Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #14) > Comment #10 contains a simple timing measurement in from my Intel Core2 Duo > based system. gfortran with its current method (ie., -fcx-fortran-rules) >

[Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753 --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12) > The optimization level is irrelevant. gfortran unilaterally > uses -fcx-fortran-rules, and there is no way to disable this > option to user the

[Bug fortran/108010] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.cc:1345

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108010 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/108010] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.cc:1345

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108010 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-12-07 Ever

[Bug fortran/108010] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.cc:1345

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108010 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-December/058586.html

[Bug fortran/108010] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.cc:1345

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108010 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/102180] Improve checking of assume size array spec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102180 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever

[Bug fortran/107872] ICE on recursive DT with DTIO since r7-4096-gbf9f15ee55f5b291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107872] ICE on recursive DT with DTIO since r7-4096-gbf9f15ee55f5b291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/107995] ICE: Segmentation fault, without backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Can we close this one? (Target milestone 13)?

[Bug fortran/102180] Improve checking of assume size array spec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102180 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/107995] ICE: Segmentation fault, without backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/107441] optional arguments are identified as "present" when missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107441 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/106856] [12/13 Regression][OOP] CLASS attribute handling / ICE in gfc_conv_expr_present, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:1977 since r12-4346-geb92cd57a1ebe7cd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106856 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107968] array slicing gives wrong result for an array pointer defined in a subroutine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107968 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-12-05 Ever

[Bug fortran/108131] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Incorrect bound calculation when bound intrinsic used in size expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108131 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Possibly caused by the fix for pr103505 (commit r12-5779).

[Bug fortran/108131] [10/11/12/13 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 Known to work||10.3.0

[Bug fortran/108109] [ICE] gfortran compilation fails calling 'free()' with 'malloc(): mismatching next->prev_size (unsorted)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108109 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Is this attached file to be preprocessed? Or does it need special options? Can't reproduce here.

[Bug fortran/95947] PACK intrinsic returns blank strings when an allocatable character array with allocatable length is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95947 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The dump tree shows near the pack intrinsic: - for character(len=10): atmp.4.dtype = {.elem_len=10, .rank=1, .type=6}; atmp.4.span = 10; atmp.4.data = 0B; atmp.4.offset = 0;

[Bug fortran/108131] [10/11/12/13 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 Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/107872] ICE on recursive DT with DTIO since r7-4096-gbf9f15ee55f5b291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/107872] ICE on recursive DT with DTIO since r7-4096-gbf9f15ee55f5b291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug fortran/107872] ICE on recursive DT with DTIO since r7-4096-gbf9f15ee55f5b291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107872 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|13.0|10.5

[Bug fortran/79426] [10 Regression] fortran - internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79426 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10 Regression] fortran -

[Bug fortran/108109] [ICE] gfortran compilation fails calling 'free()' with 'malloc(): mismatching next->prev_size (unsorted)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108109 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/95947] PACK intrinsic returns blank strings when an allocatable character array with allocatable length is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95947 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Setting a breakpoint in gfc_resolve_pack, I find for the len=: case: (gdb) p *array->ts.u.cl $12 = {length = 0x0, next = 0x2cc7af0, length_from_typespec = false, backend_decl = 0x0,

[Bug fortran/107423] ICE in parse_spec, at fortran/parse.cc:4017

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107423 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/79426] [10/11/12/13 Regression] fortran - internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79426 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug fortran/95375] ICE in add_use_op, Error: mismatching comparison operand types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95375 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/95375] ICE in add_use_op, Error: mismatching comparison operand types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95375 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >