Hi Janus, no sorry. I mixed up the context. I thought your question was on pr78534. Sorry for getting those two PRs mixed up. Just void my answer below. It is wrong. I will see what I can do about a better testcase for the trans-array part. The code responsible for the error unfortunately does not have a main program. So I need to invent something.
- Andre On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:11:50 +0100 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Andre, > > > all the sanitizer issues I fixed occur during compiling the testsuite. So I > > would say, that when with the patch these errors do not occur anymore while > > processing the testsuite, then those are tested for, right? > > aah, so you're saying that hunk is not actually related to the PR in > the subject line, but instead fixes a testsuite failure seen with a > sanitized compiler? That wasn't mentioned anywhere and sadly I forgot > to bring my crystal ball ... > > Cheers, > Janus > > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:37:43 +0100 > > Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi Andre, > >> > >> > the attached patch corrects reporting of "Sorry, unimplemented yet" for > >> > allocatable and pointer components in polymorphic objects (BT_CLASS) thus > >> > fixing two ICEs reported in the PR. > >> > > >> > The next chunk fixes an ICE when the declaration containing the token > >> > information is of type POINTER or REFERENCE. > >> > > >> > Bootstraps and regtests ok on x86_64-linux/f23. Ok for trunk? > >> > >> the resolve.c hunk is certainly ok. The trans-array.c part looks > >> reasonable as well, but I wonder if it is actually covered by any of > >> your test cases? Since they are all compile-only, with errors being > >> thrown at resolution stage, do they even get to the translation stage? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Janus > > > > > > -- > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de -- Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
