------- Comment #30 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2007-02-12 01:21 ------- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/enum_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote: > ------- Comment #29 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-12 > 01:15 ------- > Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/enum_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error) > >> ------- Comment #27 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-12 01:03 >> ------- >> (In reply to comment #6) >>> Fortran is not release-critical and this bug appears to be purely within the >>> Fortran front end. >> Should I commit the patch for the next release candidate once the branch is >> unfrozen? Personally, I don't believe this a sufficiently important bug >> (being >> an ICE on weird invalid code designed deliberately to break the compiler), >> but >> if you don't want this regression in the release, I'll happily commit it in >> time for the next release candidate. > > Mark always says that if it's not c++ ;) > > Since it's a regression, I believe it's your call. The test could > be xfail'd if you decide the benefits aren't worth the risk. User-visibility of the bug is probably zero, so I don't think this is important enough :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30478
