https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|janus a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The patch in comment 5 regtests cleanly. However, it only fixes comment 1
> but not comment 0.
Any progress?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-27 15:31:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This is also sufficient to remove the error. Regtesting now ...
The patch in comment 5 regtests cleanly. However, it only fixes comment 1 b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:53:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early
Btw, there was a similar problem recently (PR 49112 comment 6), which w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:44:25 UTC ---
I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early
(already when parsing the corresponding source line, where 'aproc' is not known
yet).
Here is a si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 15:00:33 UTC ---
Contrary to what I suggested in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-09/msg00083.html
this problem does not seem to be specific to SUBROUTINEs. It also happens when
making pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
