[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #12) > The commit r265171 that fixed this issue also introduced a regression in 8.2 > and 9, and certainly the 7 branch too if it was back-ported to it. See > PR89174 for

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 Neil Carlson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #11 from Antony Lewis --- I posted remaining ICE in 9.0.0 20190119 as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89069

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #10 from Antony Lewis --- In the latest 9.0 trunk I still see what looks like a similar ICE error (though I have not tried to isolate it again). See https://travis-ci.org/cmbant/forutils/builds/483365115 when running test script in

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas --- If I don't take it, I will lose it! Cheers Paul

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- Fixed on trunk. I am going back on my original intention to backport the recent patches to 8-branch. Or, rather, I will do them one at a time if at all. The trouble is that an omnibus patch doesn't work for al

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Mon Oct 15 16:31:15 2018 New Revision: 265171 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265171&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-10-15 Paul Thomas Tobias Burnus PR fortran/87

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 44835 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44835&action=edit Fix for the PR Hi Tobias, The problem that you found occurs in trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_class_to_class). Once foun

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Sorry, forget that last. I got out on the wrong side of the bed I think. I will take a proper look later. Cheers Paul On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 07:45, paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot c

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Tobias, You are grappling with exactly the error that I am grappling with in backporting my deferred character patches to 8-branch. The problem is the following and it is specific t

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus --- @Paul: Some guidance is welcome! (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2) > For some odd reasons the gimplfier does not like that f951 assigns a value > to the digit 0 (last but one line of the "finally")

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- Created attachment 44831 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44831&action=edit Partial draft patch If I apply the attached patch (no idea whether it really makes sense, CLASS is quite confus

[Bug fortran/87566] ICE with class(*) and select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED