--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 07:50 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.4.0).
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 07:49 ---
Subject: Bug 35830
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jun 8 07:48:53 2008
New Revision: 136554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136554
Log:
2008-06-08 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fort
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07 17:43 ---
MINE :-)
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|janus at
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07 17:30 ---
It turned out to be a attr-related thing. f needs to be 0 in the following and
it was 1:
trans-expr.c:2525 gfc_conv_function_call
int f;
f = (fsym != NULL)
&& !(fsym->at
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07 17:04 ---
> rev. 136130 contains the fixes from comment #2 and comment #3, but the test
> case from comment #1 is still failing.
Diff between dumped tree from comment #6 (working) and comment #1 (failing):
- f (&parm.38);
+
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-02 08:44 ---
> Should I add another test case with an assumed shape array (or simply change
> proc_decl_12.f90 to have an assumed shape instead of an explicit shape array)?
> Or is proc_decl_12.f90 enough as it is?
In principle,
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-31 09:17 ---
Ok, apparently rev. 136130 *did* in fact also fix the test case in comment #1
(although I somehow assumed otherwise), and therefore this whole PR is fixed.
Should I add another test case with an assumed shape array (o
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:34 ---
rev. 136130 contains the fixes from comment #2 and comment #3, but the test
case from comment #1 is still failing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:28 ---
Subject: Bug 35830
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 28 21:27:56 2008
New Revision: 136130
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136130
Log:
2008-05-28 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/3
--- Comment #6 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-05-15 21:48 ---
I noticed that while the test case from comment #1 still fails, the following
variation actually works with the patch from comment #2:
module m
contains
subroutine one(a)
integer a(:)
print *, lbound(a), ub
--- Comment #5 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-04-09 18:48 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> If we are lucky this fixes PR 35831.
Actually it does not, but I think I know how to fix it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08 08:36 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Another thing I just noticed is that dummy procedures are currently not
> checked
> for being called with the right arguments (-> compare_actual_formal),
If we are lucky this fixes PR 3583
--- Comment #3 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-04-07 22:01 ---
Another thing I just noticed is that dummy procedures are currently not checked
for being called with the right arguments (-> compare_actual_formal), e.g. in
the above test case "call f([1,2,3])" could also be called with
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #2 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-04-05 18:03 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> @@ -3649,4 +3667,5 @@ void copy_formal_args (gfc_symbol *dest,
>formal_arg->sym->attr = curr_arg->sym->attr;
>formal_arg->sym->ts = curr_arg->sym->ts;
> + formal_arg->sym->a
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-05 14:56 ---
(Problem was found when creating PR 35831.)
Janus, do you have time to look at it?
The invalid read happens for in gfc_is_nodesc_array. The problem is that
sym->attr.dimension == 1, sym->dummy == 1 but sym->as == NU
16 matches
Mail list logo
