[Bug fortran/121145] Unnecessary runtime error: non-associated procedure pointer passed to optional argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121145 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libfortran |fortran Priority

[Bug libfortran/121145] Unnecessary runtime error: non-associated procedure pointer passed to optional argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121145 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-07-17

[Bug fortran/118580] Incorrect complex (sp) - real (dp) operation within maxval

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21) > > A pragmatic solution might be to pattern-match (by name) some of the > > af

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18) > Plus, ASYNCHRONOUS means that the variable can change even in > the absence of a call, so > >CALL FOO (A) >A = 2 >

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #13) > > > I think we have quite a few bad

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #13) > I think we have quite a few bad choices here, each with different drawbacks. > I don't think we should do nothing, or pessimize ex

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #10) > The problem is not restricted to mpi_isend. This was supposed to read: ... not restricted to mpi_irecv

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/120843] [15/16-Regression, Coarray] Inconsistent ranks for operator reported when coarray ranks differ

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution

[Bug fortran/120843] [15/16-Regression, Coarray] Inconsistent ranks for operator reported when coarray ranks differ

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #6) > The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15413e05eb9cde976b8890cd9b597d0a41a8eb27 > >

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7) > (In reply to kargls from comment #5) > > > > So, if I understand, you want an fnspec of ". . w w w w w w w". > > Can

[Bug fortran/120958] tree-sra "miscompiles" asynchronous MPI (mpi_irecv) in Fortran 77 because of wrong fnspec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/120847] [15/16-Regression, Coarray] ICE after "Component ... already declared at..." when type with coarray comp is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > Created attachment 61779 [details] > Reduced testcase > > This is roughly the minimum I got. Even the nint is not needed...

[Bug fortran/120847] [15/16-Regression, Coarray] ICE after "Component ... already declared at..." when type with coarray comp is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61779 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61779&action=edit Reduced testcase This is roughly the minimum I got.

[Bug fortran/120847] [15/16-Regression, Coarray] ICE after "Component ... already declared at..." when type with coarray comp is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4) > (In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #3) > > Will backport to gcc-15 in about a week. > > I am still getting a failure on trun

[Bug fortran/120812] [regression] buffer(80:80) = C_NEW_LINE not working with gfortran 15.1 under Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Christophe Peyret from comment #11) > same on Mac ARM :) Good. So it is most likely the issue with SAVEd pointer/allocatable that was recently fixed. To verify, you can try

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Regtested fine here. Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-June/062395.html

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed by: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc index cdb838d8336..7899864158c 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc @@ -457,7 +457,9

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61738 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61738&action=edit New testcase The committed patch unfortunately broke this (reduced) testcase: pr120784-v2

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #7) > Created attachment 61738 [details] > New testcase > > The committed patch unfortunately broke this (reduced) testcase: We run into the followi

[Bug fortran/120812] [regression] buffer(80:80) = C_NEW_LINE not working with gfortran 15.1 under Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812 --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Christophe Peyret from comment #8) > try this on Mac with Fortran 15.1.0 > > > program main > > use iso_c_binding > implicit none > > character(le

[Bug fortran/119106] Crash with character array constructor + implicit loop + data from `parameter` variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119106 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #5) > Harald, are you still on this? No. As I wrote, I got stuck. Please take over if you wish!

[Bug fortran/120743] [16 regression] ice in verify_gimple_in_seq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/120812] [regression] buffer(80:80) = C_NEW_LINE not working with gfortran 15.1 under Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargls from comment #5) > (In reply to kargls from comment #4) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #3) > > > > troutmask:sgk[215] gfcx --version > &g

[Bug fortran/120711] [14/15/16 regression] Growing arrays segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120711 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #1) > Confirmed, but this is not coarray dependent. For me it also crashes without > -fcoarray=single. Indeed. valgrind reports an invalid rea

[Bug fortran/120812] [regression] buffer(80:80) = C_NEW_LINE not working with gfortran 15.1 under Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Works as expected on Linux. What happens if you replace C_NEW_LINE by something different, like c_carriage_return, or c_null_char, and pipe the output through "cat -v"?

[Bug fortran/120812] [regression] buffer(80:80) = C_NEW_LINE not working with gfortran 15.1 under Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargls from comment #2) > Harald, there's a bug (at least it fails on FreeBSD).Here's > a testcase based on the original code. On FreeBSD, I see > > %

[Bug fortran/120743] [16 regression] ice in verify_gimple_in_seq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/120711] [14/15/16 regression] Growing arrays segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120711 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- There is another recent PR on using array constructors of derived types with allocatable character components, quite similar to this one. Cannot find it now, but very likely related.

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/120743] [16 regression] ice in verify_gimple_in_seq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3) > > > > Here is a smaller reproducer. > > > ... > > > > Delete the

[Bug fortran/120788] gfortran problem with integer overflow comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120788 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61694 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61694&action=edit Untested patch

[Bug fortran/120784] fortran: issue with use-association renames and interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords

[Bug fortran/51961] [OOP] ALLOCATE with MOLD= rejects if source-expr has a different rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/82036] [F08] Recursive allocatable class components cause infinite loop in compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82036 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||12.4.1, 13.4.1, 14.3.1

[Bug fortran/46299] Diagnose specification expressions involving host-associated vars with deferred bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46299 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING Keywords

[Bug fortran/51961] [OOP] ALLOCATE with MOLD= rejects if source-expr has a different rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/120656] SEGV with a Function Returning a TYPE with ALLOCATABLE Component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120656 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/51961] [OOP] ALLOCATE with MOLD= rejects if source-expr has a different rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107362] Internal compiler error for recursive class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107362 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Status

[Bug fortran/110076] ICE on mutually recursive derived types.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110076 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Known to work

[Bug fortran/82480] KIND array returned by STAT too small for many values on CygWin platforms (and probably others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82480 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/32630] [meta-bug] ISO C binding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32630 Bug 32630 depends on bug 38220, which changed state. Bug 38220 Summary: C_LOC intrinsic non-pure and without explicit interface https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38220 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/38220] C_LOC intrinsic non-pure and without explicit interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38220 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/20585] [meta-bug] Fortran 2003 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585 Bug 20585 depends on bug 38220, which changed state. Bug 38220 Summary: C_LOC intrinsic non-pure and without explicit interface https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38220 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/29670] [meta-bug] fortran interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29670 Bug 29670 depends on bug 38220, which changed state. Bug 38220 Summary: C_LOC intrinsic non-pure and without explicit interface https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38220 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/119994] Valid specification expression in block rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119994 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61582 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61582&action=edit Exploratory patch This patch tries to improve upon the determination of whether a symbol

[Bug fortran/99838] ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:970

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99838 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone

[Bug fortran/99838] ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:970

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99838 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/114022] ICE with a complex part%ref and nested structure constructor of complex array.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114022 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.2 Status

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone

[Bug fortran/102599] Wrong simplification of inquiry parameters for complex arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102599 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.2 Status

[Bug fortran/120483] [15/16 Regression] character(len=:), allocatable, save variable returns incorrect substring since r15-2131

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120483 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Instead of adding the SAVE attribute to the declaration, one can get the same wrong code with -fno-automatic. The decl generated by gfc_sym_type() looks suspicious in the case when the SAVE

[Bug fortran/114022] ICE with a complex part%ref and nested structure constructor of complex array.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114022 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/102599] Wrong simplification of inquiry parameters for complex arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102599 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61529 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61529&action=edit Fix for the breakage by r16-914-g787a8dec1acedf

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #10) > Seems like some last-minute cleanup before submission broke something. > I'll have a look. It was the last-minute cleanup. Duh! This fixe

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7) > > > Ruuning tests right now to see if th

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7) > Ruuning tests right now to see if this has caused some breakage. Are you also hit by r16-916-g517c9487f8fdc4 which breaks texinfo again? We had t

[Bug fortran/120431] SPREAD does not handle scalar argument and NCOPIES=-1 correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120431 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargls from comment #5) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3) > > > My understanding is they are getting built gene

[Bug fortran/120431] SPREAD does not handle scalar argument and NCOPIES=-1 correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120431 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3) > My understanding is they are getting built generated in the build directory > which is a recent bug someone reported. I dont think it has been

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee

[Bug fortran/85750] [12/13 Regression] Default initialization of derived type array missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Summary|[12

[Bug fortran/101735] Type parameter inquiries for substrings are rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61505 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61505&action=edit WIP patch This WIP patch improves the parsing of expressions with inquiry references of sub

[Bug fortran/85750] [12/13/14 Regression] Default initialization of derived type array missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15/16 Regression] |[12/13/14 Regression

[Bug fortran/120371] [15.1 regression] erroneously triggered error message on non-matching interfaces with flag -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120371 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/102599] Wrong simplification of inquiry parameters for complex arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102599 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-5-20

[Bug fortran/47803] [F95+] Constant inquiry function rejected in PARAMETER definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/102891] Passing real part of complex type component using w%z%re to a subroutine gives erroneous value of dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102891 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug fortran/120355] [15/16 Regression] Type mismatch for passed external function, if external function appears in the same source file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120355 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Workaround: don't use the result clause in the external function, e.g. integer function s(x) implicit none integer, intent(in) :: x s = 1 - x end function s

[Bug fortran/120355] [15/16 Regression] Type mismatch for passed external function, if external function appears in the same source file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120355 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/120355] [15/16 Regression] Type mismatch for passed external function, if external function appears in the same source file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120355 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Type mismatch for passed|[15/16 Regression] Type

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch from comment#16 submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062180.html I hope I got the description of the issue right in the changelog.

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Does anybody know why there is the following comment preceding the suspcious block: /* Possibly return complex numbers by reference for g77 compatibility. We don't do this for cal

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 --- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > > > This fixes the reduced te

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > > This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 > > still fails h

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #12) > Good point. Tentative patch which excepts (d)conjg: > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-types.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-types.cc > index

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > I wonder why gfc_return_by_reference is not returning true here because I > think that would be idea here. Good point. Tentative patch

[Bug fortran/120099] [16 regression] gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90 FAILs since r16-372-g064cac730f88dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/120302] ICE in gfc_trans_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120302 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug fortran/120298] Use of do concurrent breaks use of semicolon as statement separator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120298 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/120179] [15 Regression] Failure with do concurrent and semicolon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@bolding-bruggeman.com

[Bug fortran/85750] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] Default initialization of derived type array missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/119928] [15/16 Regression] Bogus "Interface mismatch" in gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_52.f90 with -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119928 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||abensonca at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/119812] Bogus rank and type mismatch errors with procedure pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119812 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/85750] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] Default initialization of derived type array missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |anlauf at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/119986] Complex array part references are being passed incorrectly to a procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug fortran/120179] [15 Regression] Failure with do concurrent and semicolon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179 --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #8) > (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #5) > > commit r16-480-g6ce73ad4370c143a7d1e6a13b1d353db5884213f > > >

[Bug fortran/120049] ICE when using IS_C_ASSOCIATED ()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049 --- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Have you tried to move some of the checks *after* the resolution stage? The checks in check.cc are invoked rather early. Maybe look into trans-intrinsic.cc (conv_isocbinding_function)?

[Bug fortran/120179] [15 Regression] Failure with do concurrent and semicolon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug libfortran/120196] In findloc2_s* when "back" is true loop goes one more step than needed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120196 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > Here's a testcase that fails under valgrind: > > program p > implicit none > character(:), allocatable :: a(:), s > allocate

[Bug libfortran/120196] In findloc2_s* when "back" is true loop goes one more step than needed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120196 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed

[Bug fortran/120179] [15/16 Regression] Failure with do concurrent and semicolon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.2 Assignee

[Bug fortran/120179] [15/16 Regression] Failure with do concurrent and semicolon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 61373 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61373&action=edit Patch

[Bug fortran/120179] [15/16 Regression] Failure with do concurrent and semicolon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status

[Bug fortran/120163] [15/16 Regression] Can not import module containig call to pure routine via abstract interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120163 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords

[Bug fortran/102891] Passing real part of complex type component using w%z%re to a subroutine gives erroneous value of dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102891 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >