[Bug fortran/108937] Intrinsic IBITS(I,POS,LEN) fails when LEN equals to BIT_SIZE(I).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108937 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/104554] ICE in check_assumed_size_reference, at fortran/resolve.cc:1650

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104554 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.3

[Bug fortran/108924] memory leak in doloop_warn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108924 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/108924] memory leak in doloop_warn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108924 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug fortran/68800] Fortran FE produces many memory leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68800 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/106946] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in resolve_component, at fortran/resolve.cc:14726

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106946 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/108452] ICE in gfc_trans_use_stmts, at fortran/trans-decl.cc:5347

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108452 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-02-28

[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 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54567 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54567=edit Updated patch The original patches started to bit-rot, so here is an updated version. The current

[Bug fortran/108923] memory leak of get_intrinsic_dummy_arg result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108923 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-04-14

[Bug fortran/109511] incorrectly rejects set_exponent with constant negative exponent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109511 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/109492] gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:3407:17: error: call of overloaded ‘abs(long long int&)’ is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109492 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/105800] Segfault deallocating a class, dimension(:) array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105800 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug fortran/66973] Incorrect resolution of generic interface with TYPE(C_PTR)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66973 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2015-07-22 00:00:00 |2023-4-12

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Leandro Lupori from comment #10) > Wouldn't it be better to turn this into a warning? > > Although using the result of a function as an allocatable argument doesn't > conform with

[Bug fortran/100297] FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100297 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3) > "\.data" is the same as ".data", you want either "\\.data" or {\.data}. But > it still doesn't lower the probability to match a filename by much.

[Bug fortran/106999] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have function_type in gfc_class_data_get, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:233

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106999 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #13) > > This PR may be a duplicate of others that describe gfortran's confusion > > when using (intrinsic) modules along a module chain like

[Bug fortran/66973] Incorrect resolution of generic interface with TYPE(C_PTR)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66973 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #7) > The behavior also depends on the order of USE statements in the main: > > USE H5T > USE ISO_C_BINDING > > differs from > > USE ISO_C_BINDING > USE

[Bug fortran/69200] ICE on subsequent block statements with module imports

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69200 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/93338] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:282

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93338 --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #12) > This is fixed on current 10- through 13-branches. > > I don't quite know why it hasn't been closed. It still fails for me at -O1 and higher for

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #19) > PS: I think what you want to with a runtime check and an undefine > function result is a good idea. I haven't looked to see where > and how hard

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54894 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54894=edit Extended testcase Testcase for Steve's variant of the diagnostic, checking that we also catch procedure

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/109575] New: Implement runtime check for valid function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109575 Bug ID: 109575 Summary: Implement runtime check for valid function result Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/109575] Implement runtime check for valid function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109575 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have some idea how (and where) the runtime checks need to be implemented, but I am confused by the following observations on the occurence of an explicit RETURN statement and the use of a

[Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931 --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #18) > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc > index 221165d6dac..28ed1a32b9e 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc > +++

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Untested patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc index 02028f993fd..d70b4872162 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc @@ -986,6 +986,14 @@

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #3) > Untested patch: Unfortunately this regresses on many testcases :-(

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment

[Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931 --- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Here another invalid example which ICEs because the clash is not detected: module AModule implicit none type, bind(C) :: c_ptr private integer(8) :: c_address end type c_ptr end

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #13) > Note 1 in Fortran 2023, Sec. 8.5.3, p. 100, is non-normative > text. I suppose one can claim that gfortran should throw an > error when a function

[Bug fortran/100297] FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100297 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug testsuite/83904] gfortran.dg allocatable_function_1 failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83904 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #16) > First, note, 'allocated(f())' throws an error. Agree. > Now, with the original code, > > is_allocated(f()) > > The function reference is

[Bug libfortran/109662] bad namelist input but gfortran accepted it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |libfortran Last

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54954 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54954=edit Patch (2nd try) This one works and regtests ok.

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Adelson Oliveira from comment #11) > I'm a linux user and gfortran comes with my distro. I mean, I did not > compile gcc. > Is this patch still to be tested? Am I expected to do

[Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/109511] incorrectly rejects set_exponent with constant negative exponent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109511 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug fortran/109511] incorrectly rejects set_exponent with constant negative exponent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109511 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch rejects the code in comment#0 and regtests ok: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc index e9843e9549c..64a54c06800 100644 ---

[Bug testsuite/83904] gfortran.dg allocatable_function_1 failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83904 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/100297] FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100297 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/109511] incorrectly rejects set_exponent with constant negative exponent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109511 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- It's even worse, as simplification for arguments X below one gives wrong results: set_exponent(0.75, 3) gives 3., while the runtime version correctly prints 6.00 All gfortran

[Bug fortran/109511] incorrectly rejects set_exponent with constant negative exponent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109511 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54860 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54860=edit Patch Patch I am testing.

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/106856] [12 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 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/109348] Pointer initialization fails for target with references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109348 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/109171] initialization using %re causes segfault, as an assignment does not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109171 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/84779] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Compiling gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_4.f90 with -O1 or -Os and -fdefault-integer-8 gives an ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84779 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/91196] Interface generated for proc with VALUE, OPTIONAL misses hidden is-present argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91196 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > Created attachment 52138 [details] > Somewhat reduced reproducer > > The issue can be reproduced with a few less modules The reduced testcase compiles for

[Bug fortran/96084] ICE in free_expr0, at fortran/expr.c:446

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96084 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- It appears that after the fix for pr106856 (CLASS attributes) we get the right error messages now, and also valgrind suggests there is nothing left. I tend to mark this PR as a duplicate.

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug fortran/104349] ICE in (tree_to_uhwi) gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.cc:6337

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- BTW: the "un-dead code" was introduced with r10-2912-g70570ec1927450 .

[Bug fortran/104349] ICE in (tree_to_uhwi) gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.cc:6337

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/104349] ICE in (tree_to_uhwi) gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.cc:6337

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/57611] [Fortran-Dev Regression] Too much memory allocated (gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_alloc_2.f90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57611 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug fortran/56818] [meta-bug] fortran-dev bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818 Bug 56818 depends on bug 57611, which changed state. Bug 57611 Summary: [Fortran-Dev Regression] Too much memory allocated (gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_alloc_2.f90) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57611 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/106856] [12 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 --- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 96084 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/46532] [OMP] missing error for loop bounds missing an attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46532 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from

[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 CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/91196] Interface generated for proc with VALUE, OPTIONAL misses hidden is-present argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91196 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/96084] ICE in free_expr0, at fortran/expr.c:446

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96084 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/109451] New: ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor with ASSOCIATE and substrings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109451 Bug ID: 109451 Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor with ASSOCIATE and substrings Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/104312] ICE with -ff2c in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/61615] Failure to resolve correct generic with TYPE(C_PTR) arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99982] INTERFACE selects wrong module procedure involving C_PTR and C_FUNPTR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99982 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/61615] Failure to resolve correct generic with TYPE(C_PTR) arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/99982] INTERFACE selects wrong module procedure involving C_PTR and C_FUNPTR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99982 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target

[Bug fortran/104312] ICE with -ff2c in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/104312] ICE with -ff2c in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug fortran/64654] problem of handling character arguments in parent of an 'entry' with fewer arguments at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64654 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2021-12-17 00:00:00 |2023-4-2 --- Comment #3 from

[Bug fortran/104272] finalizer gets called during allocate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #11) > Both the original testcase as well as the reduced testcase from comment #2 > compile fine for me with trunk from earlier today at

[Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an unallocated value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Leandro Lupori from comment #5) > Ok, thanks for the detailed explanations. Now I see that the standard > doesn't allow the return of an unallocated value. This can be closed as >

[Bug fortran/97592] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Incorrectly set pointer remapping with array pointer argument to CONTIGUOUS dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/104572] ICE in gfc_resolve_finalizers, at fortran/resolve.cc:13646

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104572 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97592] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Incorrectly set pointer remapping with array pointer argument to CONTIGUOUS dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.5.0, 8.5.0

[Bug fortran/108453] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_use_stmts, at fortran/trans-decl.cc:5361 since r6-3704-g2b3f52a2d0fb22ba

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108453 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/108420] [13 Regression] ICE in check_charlen_present, at fortran/iresolve.cc:98 since r13-4394-g3832c6f7e672e76b

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

[Bug fortran/108529] [10/11/12 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 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/108592] In IF statements -Winteger-division is repeated 4 times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target

[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 Target Milestone|--- |10.5

[Bug fortran/95107] ICE in hash_operand, at fold-const.c:3768

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/103259] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in resolve_common_vars, at fortran/resolve.c:956 since r11-3866-g4d2a56a0f7135469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103259 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/69636] ICE(s) on using option -fmodule-private

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- A slightly reduced & rewritten variant of the code in comment#6: module m implicit none private public :: cx, operator(+) private :: cx_plus_int! <- why does this make a

[Bug tree-optimization/108757] We do not simplify (a - (N*M)) / N + M -> a / N

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108757 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > I am not sure this can be done in the normal case unless you know the range > of a to be [64...INF] . > The wrap around case might be an issue ... >

[Bug fortran/69636] ICE(s) on using option -fmodule-private

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment

[Bug fortran/103779] ICE in gfc_convert_chartype, at fortran/intrinsic.c:5400

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/70817] Internal compiler error coarrays -finit-real=snan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70817 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/103779] ICE in gfc_convert_chartype, at fortran/intrinsic.c:5400

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[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 Target Milestone|13.0|10.5 Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/108609] New test case gfortran.dg/pr108527.f90 in r13-5479-g22afa4947584c7 ICEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108609 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target

[Bug fortran/87477] [meta-bug] [F03] issues concerning the ASSOCIATE statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477 Bug 87477 depends on bug 95107, which changed state. Bug 95107 Summary: ICE in hash_operand, at fold-const.c:3768 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107 What|Removed |Added

<    11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   >