[Bug fortran/96580] F2018 changes to date_and_time intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96580 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100651] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Bad handling of optional, allocatable character argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100651 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100651] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Bad handling of optional, allocatable character argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100651 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.1, 12.3.1,

[Bug fortran/100651] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Bad handling of optional, allocatable character argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100651 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #12) > Created attachment 56690 [details] > Draft patch Regtests cleanly btw.

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #16) > This missed the gcc stage 1 deadline, but I'm still working on it. I always thought that the Fortran FE does not fall under this rule. Why don't

[Bug fortran/100651] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Bad handling of optional, allocatable character argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100651 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56690 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56690=edit Draft patch Very rough patch that fixes this PR and also pr93762. Need more thorough testing.

[Bug fortran/96655] [OOP] CLASS dummy arguments: Bogus "Duplicate OPTIONAL attribute specified"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96655 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[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 #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 96655 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/100988] Missed optimization: RESTRICT missing for optional arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100988 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/112772] Some issues with OPTIONAL, ALLOCATABLE dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112772 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Keywords|

[Bug fortran/105543] Function returning a class array with contiguous attribute rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105543 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to martin from comment #4) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > > Confirmed. > > > > F2018:11.1.3.3 has: > > > > "The associating entity does not have the ALLOCATABLE or POINTER

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/112772] New: Some issues with OPTIONAL, ALLOCATABLE dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112772 Bug ID: 112772 Summary: Some issues with OPTIONAL, ALLOCATABLE dummy arguments Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to martin from comment #10) > Thanks for the speedy fix! I just thought about a variation, which should > now with the fix work as well (was not yet able to compile current dev >

[Bug fortran/111880] [11/12/13/14] False positive warning of obsolescent COMMON block with Fortran submodule

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/112772] Some issues with OPTIONAL, ALLOCATABLE dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112772 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56758 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56758=edit Patch for testcase 2 This patch makes the initialization code seen in testcase 2 dependent on the

[Bug fortran/111880] [11/12/13/14] False positive warning of obsolescent COMMON block with Fortran submodule

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > Potential fix: Regtests ok.

[Bug fortran/111880] [11/12/13/14] False positive warning of obsolescent COMMON block with Fortran submodule

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-23 Ever

[Bug fortran/111880] [11/12/13/14] False positive warning of obsolescent COMMON block with Fortran submodule

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/112643] [14 regression] including x86intrin.h is broken for -march=native (which adds -mno-avx10.1-256 )

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643 --- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Urs Janßen from comment #25) > (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #24) > > Patch aims to fix that: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/637865.html

[Bug fortran/112609] [F2023] Restrictions on integer arguments to SYSTEM_CLOCK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112609 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/112700] Segmentation fault with list of characters and types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112700 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/100988] Missed optimization: RESTRICT missing for optional arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100988 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/112828] Abort with malloc(): corrupted top size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112828 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/100988] Missed optimization: RESTRICT missing for optional arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100988 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:58:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > In your experience, how good (or bad) is a naive inline version > > like

[Bug fortran/105170] Invalid finalization in intrinsic assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105170 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-12-07

[Bug fortran/111503] Issues with POINTER, OPTIONAL, CONTIGUOUS dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111503 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56832 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56832=edit Draft patch The attached patch adds handling for NULL([MOLD]) and fixes comment#0.

[Bug fortran/111503] Issues with POINTER, OPTIONAL, CONTIGUOUS dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111503 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/100651] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Bad handling of optional, allocatable character argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100651 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch looks mostly fine, but can you explain why you make some of the specific functions generic? Like: + make_generic ("dacosd", GFC_ISYM_ACOSD, GFC_STD_GNU); Because we do not make the

[Bug fortran/105543] Function returning a class array with contiguous attribute rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105543 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/112873] F2023 degree trig functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/112772] Some issues with OPTIONAL, ALLOCATABLE dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112772 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56736 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56736=edit Fix for testcase 1 The attached rather obvious patch fixes the copy-out issue for class dummies and

[Bug fortran/112772] Some issues with OPTIONAL, ALLOCATABLE dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112772 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/112764] Associating entity does not have target attribute if selector has pointer attribute in associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112764 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target

[Bug fortran/113621] New test case gfortran.dg/optional_absent_10.f90 from r14-8400-g186ae6d2cb93ad fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113621 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I guess the following reduced testcase shows the same crash: program test implicit none character(4) :: c(7) = "*" call three_val (c) contains subroutine three_val (i, j)

[Bug libfortran/111022] ES0.0E0 format gave ES0.dE0 output with d too high.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022 --- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #24) > Currently gfortran does the following: > > character(20) :: fmt > character(9) :: buffer > fmt = "(1a1,d0.2,1a1)" > write(buffer,fmt) ">", 3.0,

[Bug fortran/104908] [11/12/13/14 Regression] incorrect Fortran out-of-bound runtime error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104908 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Studying the cases that ICE (CLASS array dummy) and testcase PR95331.f90 which fixes an unlimited polymorphic problem, I tried the following change: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc

[Bug fortran/113621] New test case gfortran.dg/optional_absent_10.f90 from r14-8400-g186ae6d2cb93ad fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113621 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to seurer from comment #0) > This appears to be a problem just on big endian. This is only for -m32, right? > Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory >

[Bug fortran/104908] [11/12/13/14 Regression] incorrect Fortran out-of-bound runtime error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104908 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #6) > This is currently regtesting. Regtesting succeeded.

[Bug fortran/113377] Wrong code passing optional dummy argument to elemental procedure with optional dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #10) > * gfortran.dg/optional_absent_10.f90: New test. According to gcc-testresults this new test fails on POWER BE systems: FAIL:

[Bug fortran/113338] [F2018] Valid Code Rejected, bind(C) procedure with pointer argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113338 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I just tried the example in comment#0 with ifort/ifx and noticed that it may be over-simplified: the contained procedure is internal and thus not visible to the external C code. The BIND

[Bug fortran/110987] Segmentation fault after finalization of a temporary variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/113152] Fortran 2023 half-cycle trigonometric functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-01-21 Ever

[Bug fortran/113503] [14 Regression] xtb test miscompilation starting with r14-870

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113503 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- When trying to further reduce the code I get either an ICE or an uninitialized-warning for: program xtb implicit none type :: TSolvInput character(len=:), allocatable :: solvent end

[Bug fortran/113503] [14 Regression] xtb test miscompilation starting with r14-870

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113503 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > When trying to further reduce the code I get either an ICE or an > uninitialized-warning for: program xtb implicit none type :: TSolvInput

[Bug fortran/113377] Wrong code passing optional dummy argument to elemental procedure with optional dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 57166 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57166=edit Testcase exercising passing of integer optional dummy arguments This testcase passes with NAG and ifx

[Bug fortran/113377] Wrong code passing optional dummy argument to elemental procedure with optional dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > > > Note that the following scalar example also fails: > > > "Fortunately", it is invalid. :-) > > From

[Bug fortran/113471] [14 regression] wrong array bound check failure on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113471 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/110987] [13/14 Regression] Segmentation fault after finalization of a temporary variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Segmentation fault after|[13/14 Regression]

[Bug fortran/110987] [13/14 Regression] Segmentation fault after finalization of a temporary variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to John Haiducek from comment #6) > I encountered what appears to be the same bug under slightly different > conditions; I've attached the corresponding code (see attachment named >

[Bug fortran/113671] Passing allocatable character(:) slices with negative stride: invalid memory access / segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113671 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Another reduced variant: program arrays10 implicit none character(5), allocatable :: a(:) character(:), allocatable :: b(:) a = [ character(5) :: "one", "two", "three"] b = [

[Bug fortran/112609] New: [F2023] Restrictions on integer arguments to SYSTEM_CLOCK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112609 Bug ID: 112609 Summary: [F2023] Restrictions on integer arguments to SYSTEM_CLOCK Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/112609] [F2023] Restrictions on integer arguments to SYSTEM_CLOCK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112609 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-18

[Bug fortran/104819] Reject NULL without MOLD as actual to an assumed-rank dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56546|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/104819] Reject NULL without MOLD as actual to an assumed-rank dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #5) > We need to detect and diagnose violations of the above. Example: program main implicit none type t integer :: i end type t type(t),

[Bug fortran/104819] Reject NULL without MOLD as actual to an assumed-rank dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56563 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56563=edit Partial testsuite fixes This patch contains obvious fixes to 3 testcases, except for assumed_rank_9.f90,

[Bug bootstrap/112643] New: Failure to build libitm with --disable-bootstrap after r14-5607-g2f8f7ee2db82a3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643 Bug ID: 112643 Summary: Failure to build libitm with --disable-bootstrap after r14-5607-g2f8f7ee2db82a3 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/112643] Failure to build libitm with --disable-bootstrap after r14-5607-g2f8f7ee2db82a3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- For clarification: I did not bisect, but yesterdays build did work, today's doesn't, and I am seeing warnings while building libgfortran most likely pointing to this change.

[Bug bootstrap/112643] Failure to build libitm with --disable-bootstrap after r14-5607-g2f8f7ee2db82a3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56655 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56655=edit config.status

[Bug bootstrap/112643] Failure to build libitm with --disable-bootstrap after r14-5607-g2f8f7ee2db82a3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112643 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #4) > Could you provide the exact options you build GCC with --disable-bootstrap > for me to reproduce? > > I suppose all of them are

[Bug fortran/112459] gfortran -w option causes derived-type finalization at creation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112459 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/113793] malloc abort on character allocate with source argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #57354|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/103496] [F2018][TS29113] C_SIZEOF – rejects now valid args with 'must be an interoperable data entity'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The code in comment#0 compiles at r14-9893-gded646c91d2c0f and gives the indicated results.

[Bug fortran/106500] ICE on function as an argument to c_sizeof()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106500 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target

[Bug fortran/114739] [14 Regression] ice in gfc_find_derived_types, at fortran/symbol.cc:2458

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Reduced testcase: program main implicit complex(z) z2%re = 1. z2%im = 2. end

[Bug fortran/114739] [14 Regression] ice in gfc_find_derived_types, at fortran/symbol.cc:2458

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/113793] malloc abort on character allocate with source argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/113793] malloc abort on character allocate with source argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/114781] Error in ALLOCATE with MOLD=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114781 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-19

[Bug fortran/103471] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103471 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/54389] [F2003/F2008 difference] PURE functions and pointer dummy arguments / DECL_PURE_P issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #7 from

[Bug fortran/102597] ICE in gfc_get_extern_function_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:2243 since r8-3365-gb89a63b916340ef2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102597 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.1, 12.3.1

[Bug fortran/103496] [F2018][TS29113] C_SIZEOF – rejects now valid args with 'must be an interoperable data entity'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/95682] [11/12 Regression] Default assignment fails with allocatable array of deferred-length strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95682 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||13.2.1, 14.0

[Bug fortran/102620] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_array_span, at fortran/trans-array.c:865 since r12-1233-gd514626ee2566c68

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #11) > It would be splendid if you would backport the patch. In the last week or > so, I have built up quite a list of backports to do, which I will attend

[Bug fortran/102620] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_array_span, at fortran/trans-array.c:865 since r12-1233-gd514626ee2566c68

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/114827] Valgrind reports errors with class(*) assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/114827] Valgrind reports errors with class(*) assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 58056 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58056=edit Patch part 2. This part fixes the array case. Needs further testing.

[Bug fortran/114874] New: [14/15 Regression] ICE with select type, type is (character(*)), and substring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874 Bug ID: 114874 Summary: [14/15 Regression] ICE with select type, type is (character(*)), and substring Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/114874] [14/15 Regression] ICE with select type, type is (character(*)), and substring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.5.0, 11.4.1, 12.3.1,

[Bug fortran/114874] [14/15 Regression] ICE with select type, type is (character(*)), and substring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114874 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #0) > The following code fails for me with latest 14-branch/15-release candidate: Oops, I meant: 14-release candidate/15-mainline after branching...

[Bug fortran/114815] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault - on creating type with len parameter and dependent on it character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114815 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/114827] Valgrind reports errors with class(*) assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/102620] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_array_span, at fortran/trans-array.c:865 since r12-1233-gd514626ee2566c68

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > > I get the same behavior at r13-8559 as 14-mainline. There seems to be > > another commit that fixed it

[Bug fortran/103496] [F2018][TS29113] C_SIZEOF – rejects now valid args with 'must be an interoperable data entity'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 57937 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57937=edit c_sizeof_8.f90 Here's a testcase derived from comment#0. Feel free to adapt it to your meet your needs,

[Bug fortran/113793] malloc abort on character allocate with source argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #57931|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/113793] malloc abort on character allocate with source argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug fortran/114739] [14 Regression] ice in gfc_find_derived_types, at fortran/symbol.cc:2458

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,

[Bug fortran/114467] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114467 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to thomas from comment #3) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > > Can you attached a self-contained reproducer? > > > > The traceback looks familiar. Are you by chance using an

[Bug fortran/114827] Valgrind reports errors with class(*) assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #58048|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/86100] Spurious error with -fcheck=bounds and allocatable class(*) array components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The code fragment in comment#2 was added in r7-3760-g92c5266bbd5378.

[Bug fortran/86100] Spurious error with -fcheck=bounds and allocatable class(*) array components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86100 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/114922] fsyntax-only need the modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug fortran/115039] New: Statement function with inquiry refs rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115039 Bug ID: 115039 Summary: Statement function with inquiry refs rejected Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

<    15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   >