--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 08:59 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Here is new code demonstrating the error. It is simply the original code with
> one extra subroutine call:
That is the same as PR 29565.
So closing this bug as fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc
--- Comment #8 from drewmccormack at mac dot com 2006-10-31 08:51 ---
Unfortunately, though the fix did work for the example code, it doesn't seem to
be general enough. In particular, if you change the example code to include
just one extra subroutine call, the same compiler error arises
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 05:31 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 05:19 ---
Subject: Bug 28885
Author: pault
Date: Wed Aug 30 05:19:34 2006
New Revision: 116579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116579
Log:
2006-08-30 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 28885
Author: pault
Date: Wed Aug 30 05:18:36 2006
New Revision: 116578
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116578
Log:
2006-08-30 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-29 15:49 ---
Since I just posted a patch for it, I might as well assign it to myself!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-08-29
13:12 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=12148)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12148&action=view) [edit]
> Provisional fix for the problem
> This is regtesting as I write
--- Comment #2 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-08-29
13:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=12148)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12148&action=view)
Provisional fix for the problem
This is regtesting as I write but I have little doubt that this is
--- Comment #1 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-08-29
13:05 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Drew,
You are really uncovering them! A simplified version of your testcase that
produces the same fault is:
program test
type t
integer :: i
integer :: j
end type
