https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-26 19:25:55
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Sun Sep 26 19:25:52 2010
New Revision: 164638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164638
Log:
2010-09-26 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/45783
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
--- Comment #6 from Salvatore Filippone
2010-09-26 10:27:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Confirmed. I do not yet see how this is related to my commit, but will look
> into it of course. Thanks for the report!
Well, considering how many ti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
--- Comment #4 from Salvatore Filippone
2010-09-26 07:43:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It is very likely a duplicate of pr45783.
>
> The code compiles at r164549
and fails at r164550
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
--- Comment #3 from Salvatore Filippone
2010-09-26 07:33:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It is very likely a duplicate of pr45783.
The code compiles at r164549
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-25
21:21:19 UTC ---
It is very likely a duplicate of pr45783.
