https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:52:03AM +, xiao@compiler-dev.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
>
> --- Comment #5 from xiao@compiler-dev.com ---
> (In reply to Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #5 from xiao@compiler-dev.com ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
> Created attachment 49856 [details]
> Fix for the PR
>
> Thank you for the report on this problem.
>
> The attached patch fixes the problem and regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test compiles if I replace
print *, tmp
with
print *, tmp(3,1) ! or (6,1)
but it prints
1 2 2 3 3 4
instead of 2 or 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
