On 2 March 2018 at 09:38, Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > I was not aware. Thanks for letting me know. > > It's wierd that there is no error message or an ICE. Previously, an > ICE would occur instead of the intended error message. > > I do not have access to either targets. Would you be so kind as to run > coarray_47.f90 separately to see what happens? Note that 7-branch > behaves correctly. > > Cheers
According to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-03/ it also happens on x86_64, I suspect that's easier for you? Thanks, Christophe > > Paul > > On 2 March 2018 at 08:26, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 1 March 2018 at 14:28, Paul Richard Thomas >> <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Committed as 'obvious' in revision 258098. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> 2018-03-01 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org> >>> >>> PR fortran/84219 >>> * target-memory.c (gfc_interpret_derived): Assert that BT_VOID >>> components are caf tokens. >>> (gfc_target_interpret_expr): Treat BT_VOID expressions as >>> integers. >>> >>> 2018-03-01 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org> >>> >>> PR fortran/84219 >>> * gfortran.dg/coarray_47.f90: New test. >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> You may already be aware of that, but the new test fails at least on >> aarch64 and arm targets: >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_47.f90 -O (test for errors, line 12) >> As a matter of fact, I can see no error message in gfortran.log, hence >> dg-error fails to match. >> >> Christophe > > > > -- > "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" > - Albert Einstein
