https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #0)
>
> % gfortran -c source-allocate-pure-function-result-component.f90
> source-allocate-pure-function-result.f90:17:20:
>
>17 | allocate(test%i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #20 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Jerry, thanks for getting this in gcc15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114020
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #0)
> > Found with the Fujitsu testsuite. Reduced testcase.
> > Note, if the use of ENTRY is replace with an actual
> > fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #14 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Created attachment 61157
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61157&action=edit
Patch to fix issue
Here are Changelog entries for fortran/ and testsuite/.
2025-04-18 Steven G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #12 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 4/17/25 23:59, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Is it worth reverting or fixing this before the 15-branch release? After all,
> the bug made its way into the Fedora 42 release?
I'll submi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #9 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #4)
> + bool is_pure = e->value.function.isym
> + || (e->value.function.esym
> + && (e->value.function.esym->a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
--- Comment #9 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 4/17/25 02:43, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I can reproduce with xterm, but the ) characte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 4/16/25 22:01, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I was looking into this and don't see COLUMN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #7 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 4/16/25 17:33, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> I get one test failure:
>
> FAIL: gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
So, in my testing I use an 80-column wide xterm. The warning I see is
Warning: The Hollerith constant at (1) is truncated in conversion to
'INTEGER(4' [-Wcharacter-truncation]
The last parenthe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #4 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
All intrinsic functions are simple, and therefore pure. The following
patch should fix the issue with functions. A similar fix is needed for
subroutine, but only a few intrinsic subroutine are p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Well, that's weird. It appears that I'm the guilty person.
'git blame resolve.cc' leads to 7d92901c878c
commit 7d92901c878c6c00ada7f9cee8825f03ad4722f1
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Sun Nov 24 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
grep %qs\" fortran/*.cc | wc -l
shows that there are 102 occurrences of warning/error strings
the end with a quoted string. I haven't tried to construct
Fortran codes to seem if any of the othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libgdiagnostics
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119837
Bug ID: 119837
Summary: Off-by-one truncation in a warning message from
gfortran with quoted string
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119827
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Visagan Ravindran from comment #2)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #1)
> > Perhaps, a review of the Fortran standard is in order.
> >
> >F2023, 9.4.1
> >
> >R910 substrin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119827
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119800
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Keith Refson from comment #3)
> > > I think it probably also needs to flag up if MOLD contains an alloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119800
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Keith Refson from comment #3)
> > I think it probably also needs to flag up if MOLD contains an allocatable or
> > pointer component too. Modif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119800
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #1)
> (In reply to Keith Refson from comment #0)
>
> >
> > I suggest at least issuing a warning to expect undefined run-time behaviour!
> >
>
> Here's a patch h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119800
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119575
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #1)
> By placing line numbers on every line of the program, once cannot simply
> copy and
> paste the code into a file for testing. The code as written contains i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119575
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119478
Bug ID: 119478
Summary: structure constructor is using the wrong stride
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #1)
> Works for me.
>
> What OS?
>
> How was gcc configured?
Whoops, I take that back. I missed that you were using the -Wall option.
f951: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119157
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119136
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 3/4/25 16:33, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
>
> Jerry DeLisle changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
Bug ID: 119118
Summary: substring with negative start index
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #22 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 2/25/25 20:28, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to kargls from comment #20)
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #20 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
>
> What this is doing is invoking -std=legacy for files with suffixes that
> imply legacy files such as .f
>
> This is my first dive on the lang-spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
--- Comment #11 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 2/25/25 12:43, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
>
> --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102368
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84386
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2)
> This is fixed, already in 13.3.0.
>
> Commit a test case and close? Or is this already covered in the
> testsuite?
The test still fails for me with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84591
--- Comment #7 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #6)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> > (In reply to kargls from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> > > > Resolve as invalid?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84591
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> > > Resolve as invalid?
> >
> > IMHO. Yes.
> >
> > IMNSHO, -fdefault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118789
--- Comment #7 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #6)
> Steve have you had a closer look at this one?
I did watch f951 in gdb with the code in comment #3, but I could not
find where to avoid an ICE. The s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84591
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118884
--- Comment #11 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> Fixed with r15-7552-gfd00010ba21c04bddb20aef52f62de5636075067 .
Thanks for the quick fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118884
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96909
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118789
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118783
--- Comment #1 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Created attachment 60413
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60413&action=edit
scalar test case that passes testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118783
Bug ID: 118783
Summary: CLASS, pointer association, and an array element of a
component.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114618
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798
--- Comment #10 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> F2023 states
>
> The following Fortran 2018 features might have a different interpretation
> under this document.
>
> After an allocatable deferred
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118685
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 2/3/25 19:52, gerald at pfeifer dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
> Note that with @Andreas Tobler we have a formal GCC on FreeBSD maintainer
> who I am looping in, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118735
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 2/3/25 02:14, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #14 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #13)
> Closing as fixed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #8 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
I just looked at your code in bugreport2.tar.gz. It uses a
parameterized derived type. PDT are broken on gfortran.
Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for PDT, and it has been
suggested it needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Ryan Koehler from comment #4)
> Created attachment 60339 [details]
> Example code that throws error with this patch
Thanks. I was afraid that wrong code would occur or
I simply put
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118710
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118705
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Ryan Koehler from comment #2)
> Hmm that is interesting.
>
> That fix seemed to work. Its been a while since I read the ISO standard, but
> I don't think what I sent over is out-of-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118705
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118685
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #11 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 1/24/25 09:26, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Do we need a backport of this?
>
I'll leave that decision up to you. It is a fairly concise
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116668
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> I wonder if this should be closed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117188
--- Comment #4 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> I think this can be closed.
yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to federico from comment #3)
> Sorry, I introduced a typo while editing the post.
> Here is a slightly shorter version of the sample:
>
Given your track record in fortran-lang, I ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 1/20/25 12:40, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
>
> Jerry DeLisle changed:
>
> What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #2)
> Tracing into libgfortran, the bug appears to be in write.c(write_utf8_char4).
> In particular, the entire string is written due to line 181. The 'src_len'
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Tracing into libgfortran, the bug appears to be in write.c(write_utf8_char4).
In particular, the entire string is written due to line 181. The 'src_len'
is likely wrong if one has an A edit descr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #1 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Trimming the testcase to show to clean up the -fdump-tree-original output.
program test
use iso_fortran_env
implicit none
integer, parameter :: ucs4 = selected_char_kind('ISO_10646')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
Bug ID: 118571
Summary: UTF-8 output and the A edit descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #18 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 1/17/25 10:17, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
>
> --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>
> As it is not clear what is th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #16 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 1/17/25 03:47, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
>
> --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to kargls from comment #14)
>> (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #14 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #13)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> > > Question is, what should we permit...
> > >
> > > For 'normal'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #12 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> Question is, what should we permit...
>
> For 'normal' operations, only unsigned op unsigned is permitted,
> so unsigned**unsigned is obviously ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> Yes, please lift the restriction. I ran into this issue while
> writing a testcase as well. As J3 is not con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #2)
> > Not Thomas, but ...
> >
> > https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-116.txt
> >
> > The exponentiation operat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
--- Comment #9 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> Created attachment 60157 [details]
> Patch
>
> This patch rejects NULL() as source-expr, without or with MOLD.
>
> I believe that F03:C632 can be interprete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
--- Comment #7 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> But all other variations, like in comment#0, ICE here.
The code is comment #0 involves source-expr. The code
in comment #1 involves type-spec. These are n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #1)
> --- snip ---
> >
> > This now gives
> >
> > % gfcx -c pr71
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107596
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
This appears to be fixed in gcc 14 and trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71884
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118337
--- Comment #4 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I wonder if the incompatibility isn't just about the iso-c-binding.def (and
> maybe iso-fortran-env.def) changes inserting stuff in the middle rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118337
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1)
> Probably safest to bump the module version
Agree with Thomas, here. The internally generated iso_c_binding module
from 14 and 15 are different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118259
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #27 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 12/28/24 11:49, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
>
> --- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Why not set it in gfc_resolve_expr near
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #24 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc
> > index 580f8c8407d..759eb99a645 100644
> > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #23 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
> > (In reply to kargls from comment #17)
> > > I suppose the error in check.cc(gfc_check_f_c_string) that sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #17 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 12/24/24 10:03, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
>
> --- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> From Harald's post. "There is another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #14 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #12)
> The following additional patch from Harald posted on the gfortran list:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-December/061452.html
>
> di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
--- Comment #10 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> > > The following patch works and might be a reasonable compromise:
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
--- Comment #8 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> The following patch works and might be a reasonable compromise:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
> index 82a2ae1f747
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Slava Zakharin from comment #5)
> Right, this test deliberately introduces the aliasing to demonstrate that
> gfortran has too optimistic assumptions about aliasing of COMPLEX and REA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118120
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #10 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 12/17/24 16:23, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Patch applies cleanly. Testing started.
>
Thanks, Jerry, for taking a look at the patch.
On x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #8 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #7)
> Created attachment 59903 [details]
> Complete patch with testcase included
>
> The new diff is a complete implementation with an included testcase.
Forgot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59827|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59830|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
--- Comment #15 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #13)
> >
> > If something goes wrong, do you possibly need to free expr1 and expr2.
> > Elsewhere in gfc_match_select
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59617|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Created attachment 59827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59827&action=edit
Testcase for f_c_string
The attached testcase has a number of tests currently commented out.
Those
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
