https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 19:10:29 UTC ---
In 4.8 and trunk, there is an additional problem with the test case in comment
0, see PR 56939.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-30
13:28:58 UTC ---
The behavior of the test in comment #0 modified with the following patch
--- pr55959.f902013-01-13 12:23:04.0 +0100
+++ pr55959_0_db.f902013-01-13 12:43
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-13 13:07:01 UTC ---
Apparently it is trivially fixed by this patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-13 09:58:49 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
module pdfs
type :: pdf
contains
procedure, nopass :: getx
end type pdf
contains
real function getx()
end function
end m
