On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:21:41PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > I see this new test case failing on x86_64-linux-gnu:
>> >
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78240.f90 -O (tes
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:21:41PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I see this new test case failing on x86_64-linux-gnu:
> >
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78240.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
> >
> >
> > $ gfortran-8 pr78240.f90
> >
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:21:41PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
> > Error: The module or main program array ‘x’ at (1) must have constant shape
> > pr78240.f90:11:19:
> >
> >integer x(n)/1/ ! { dg-error "Nonconstant array" }
> >
2017-11-14 23:21 GMT+01:00 Fritz Reese :
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I see this new test case failing on x86_64-linux-gnu:
>>
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78240.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>>
>>
>> $ gfortran-8 pr78240.f90
>> pr78240.f90:11:12:
>>
>>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I see this new test case failing on x86_64-linux-gnu:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78240.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>
>
> $ gfortran-8 pr78240.f90
> pr78240.f90:11:12:
>
>integer x(n)/1/ ! { dg-error "Nonconstant array"
Hi guys,
I see this new test case failing on x86_64-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78240.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
$ gfortran-8 pr78240.f90
pr78240.f90:11:12:
integer x(n)/1/ ! { dg-error "Nonconstant array" }
1
Error: Variable ‘n’ cannot appear in the expression
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:42:31PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> > The following patch fixes PR fortran/78240. It seems
> > to me to be inelegant, but it does pass regression
> > testing. [...] OK to commit?
>
> Upon closer analysis, the patch
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> The following patch fixes PR fortran/78240. It seems
> to me to be inelegant, but it does pass regression
> testing. [...] OK to commit?
Upon closer analysis, the patch is insufficient to fix the PR. I will
explain below. At the bottom of this
The following patch fixes PR fortran/78240. It seems
to me to be inelegant, but it does pass regression
testing. The kludgy portion occurs in decl.c.
march_clist_expr is clearly expecting an array with
constant dimension due to gcc_assert. When -fdec
is used and one takes Gerhard code (see testc
