[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 57571 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57571&action=edit Tentative patch (In reply to anlauf from comment #5) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > Thus I suggest

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6) > I need to reevaluate it; there were other regressions if I remember > correctly. The changes are these: PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > > Excess errors: > > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/g

[Bug fortran/105547] No further "Unclassifiable statement" after the first one if multiple syntax errors.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105547 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 57739 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57739&action=edit Patch fixing the problem This small patch fixes the problem. Unfortunately allowing more errors seems counter-p

[Bug fortran/105547] No further "Unclassifiable statement" after the first one if multiple syntax errors.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105547 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/103472] ICE in gfc_conv_ss_startstride, at fortran/trans-array.c:4527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103472 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||14.0 Known to fail|

[Bug fortran/114475] [14 Regression] Regression with iso_c_binding and submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/107426] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types, at fortran/interface.cc:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #10 from Mikael Mor

[Bug fortran/107426] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types, at fortran/interface.cc:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/114475] [14 Regression] Regression with iso_c_binding and submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/92178] Segmentation fault after passing allocatable array as intent(out) and its element as value into the same subroutine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|mikael at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55660 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55660&action=edit Update function type patch This patch changes the dummy argument declaration type. It changes the dump as foll

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55662 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55662&action=edit Updated tentative patch This fixes comment #4 as well, but the failure on value_9 remains on 32 bit powerpc.

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #40 from Mikael Morin --- Harald, I have just closed the followup PR110419. I think this PR can be closed as well, or is there something left to be done?

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #42 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #41) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #40) > > Harald, I have just closed the followup PR110419. > > I think this PR can be closed as well, or is there something left

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5) > Here sym->formal_ns is NULL because the symbol C has not been completely > setup. This makes the following an "obvious" fix: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc b/g

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #7) > Do you have a solution that we can fix RISC-V backend? No, this is not RISC-V specific. > Or you will fix it in Fortran front-end? Yes, the fix will have to be in

[Bug fortran/68152] ICE on declaring array result for function and entry

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68152 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/86657] ASAN error: heap-use-after-free gcc/fortran/symbol.c:1762 in gfc_add_flavor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86657 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug fortran/48776] ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving PROCEDURE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug fortran/48776] ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving PROCEDURE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6) > Can't reproduce with a recent master (14.0.0 20230814). Sorry, missed the -std=f95 flag. Confirmed on recent master.

[Bug fortran/48776] ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving PROCEDURE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/107923] ICE in lookup_function_fuzzy_find_candidates / check_interface0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107923 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

[Bug fortran/48776] ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving PROCEDURE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gs...@t-online.de --- Comment #10 from Mi

[Bug fortran/48776] ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving PROCEDURE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/89891] [meta-bug] Accessing memory in rejected statements or expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891 Bug 89891 depends on bug 48776, which changed state. Bug 48776 Summary: ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving PROCEDURE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/108957] Fortran FE memleak with interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-09-08 Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug fortran/111339] New: bounds-check does not detect nonconforming functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111339 Bug ID: 111339 Summary: bounds-check does not detect nonconforming functions Product: gcc Version: 4.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/108957] Fortran FE memleak with interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug fortran/108957] Fortran FE memleak with interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug fortran/110996] RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during parsing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug fortran/107716] Getting negative values with NINT when using doubleprecision values in range on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 56091 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56091&action=edit Rough patch Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls. It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at l

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #21) > > (...) and should be able to submit the first > series (inline minloc without dim argument) this week. > I missed the "this week" mark (again), but I've finall

[Bug fortran/116196] New: Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 Bug ID: 116196 Summary: Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/116196] Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- Draft patch: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc index 15edf1af9df..348fd562ef6 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc @@ -1253,11 +1253,8 @@ ch

[Bug fortran/101919] Inconsistent -Wstringop-overread warning with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101919 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/116359] New: Nested contained procedures rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116359 Bug ID: 116359 Summary: Nested contained procedures rejected Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/116196] Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- More complete testcase: ! { dg-do run } ! { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" } ! ! PR fortran/116196 MODULE m IMPLICIT NONE INTEGER, TARGET :: arr(5) END MODULE m PROGRAM main USE m IMP

[Bug fortran/116196] Missing temporary with WHERE and aliasing TARGET array references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 58971 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58971&action=edit Draft patch This fixes the testcase. But the testcase is by far insufficient to thoroughly check the correctnes

[Bug fortran/116359] Nested contained procedures rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116359 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/109626] forwprop introduces new signed multiplication UB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109626 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug tree-optimization/109834] [14 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (ssa_name) in gimple_simplify_191 when building harfbuzz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109834 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/111293] [14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination since r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111293 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/111293] [14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination since r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111293 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin --- For what's worth adding -fno-tree-vrp "fixes" this and enables removal of the call to 'foo' with trunk. Here is a minimal revert of the regressing revision, but it may just make the problem latent. diff --g

[Bug fortran/114922] fsyntax-only need the modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/99798] ICE when compiling a variant of pr87907

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug fortran/102619] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_dtype, at fortran/trans-array.c:215 since r9-6493-g0e3088806577e805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8) > (...) that is it was using too loops in a row in some cases. > ... *two* loops in a row ... (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9) > > Thanks Mikael! >

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56091|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 --- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #12) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11) > > Created attachment 56094 [details] > > Improved patch > > > > This improved patch (still single argument only)

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- I'm trying to remove the formal_arg_flag global variables, which seem to just disable all the checks on dummy arguments. Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be simplified to thi

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56094|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/112371] New: Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 Bug ID: 112371 Summary: Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #0) > i = 1 > (...) > r = sum(a, dim=i) If i is inlined, that is r = sum(a, dim=1) the shape and ubound are (/ 3, 0, 7 /) as expected. The difference is p

[Bug fortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- If dim == 3, the ubound and shape are (/ 9, 3, 7 /) as expected. That is, the problem only arises if the resulting array is empty.

[Bug fortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- Possible culprit: ifunction.m4 has this code: retarray->base_addr = xmallocarray (alloc_size, sizeof (rtype_name)); if (alloc_size == 0) { /* Make sure we have a zero-sized arra

[Bug libfortran/112412] New: Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412 Bug ID: 112412 Summary: Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug libfortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libfortran/112412] Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/112371] Wrong upper bound for the result of reduction intrinsics if the array is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libfortran/112412] Masked reduction functions return an unallocated array when the result is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug fortran/109948] [13/14 Regression] ICE(segfault) in gfc_expression_rank() from gfc_op_rank_conformable()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/109948] [13/14 Regression] ICE(segfault) in gfc_expression_rank() from gfc_op_rank_conformable()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948 --- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #16) > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #15) > > Created attachment 55225 [details] > > Fix for this PR > > > > The attached patch substantially tidies up parse_associa

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55296 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55296&action=edit Another way to fix this problem

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #9) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > > > > I haven't understood yet how (and why) temporaries are generated for > > procedure arguments even when it is known at

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array constructor, > and the code would ICE on empty constructors of derived type. > Looking at the code, I

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #13) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > > > Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array > > > cons

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin --- Looking further at the implementation of gfc_trans_allocate_array_storage, the size vs elem_size dance can be removed from my patch, as size is almost unused in the onstack case.

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55296|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #15) > > Your patch also seems to fix (at first glance) the character case as well > as type, so this appears to be the right direction. Yet, your patch identifies a bug in

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #20) > > This patch fails for me on several occasions including the testsuite. > I guess the logic was intended as follows: > Well, not really, it seems wasteful to use the

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #22 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #20) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18) > > Created attachment 55300 [details] > > Alternative patch v2 > > This patch fails for me on several occasions including

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #22) > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc > index 1c7ea900ea1..cc1dddbeb33 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc > +++ b/gcc/for

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23) > > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings), > and on pr69955.f90 (that's one extra __builtin_malloc). This removes the regressions.

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23) > > > > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings), > > and on pr69955.f90 (that's one ext

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #27) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25) > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24) > > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23) > > > > > > > > This regr

[Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized for zero length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277 --- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #29) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #27) > > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25) > > > > (In reply to Mikael Mori

[Bug fortran/110241] Redundant temporaries passing empty array constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110241 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/92887] [F2008] Passing nullified/disassociated pointer or unalloc allocatable to OPTIONAL + VALUE dummy fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug fortran/92887] [F2008] Passing nullified/disassociated pointer or unalloc allocatable to OPTIONAL + VALUE dummy fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #6) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > > @@ -6396,7 +6399,28 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol * > > >

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin --- This is out of the scope of this PR, but in the [character, value, bind(c)] case, only constant values and variables are supported?

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #6) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > > > Looks good. > > I would suggest to create an overload that avoids duplicating the > > build_int_cst (integer_type_node,

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)> > Let's hope that somebody with access to such a system can run the testcase > manually and append the output to this PR. I have asked for an account on the compile f

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #15) > I have asked for an account on the compile farm (see > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm) to have access to a powerpc machine. It was pretty fast to get the

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18) > There is the "obvious" problem that gfc_build_wide_string_const creates a > bare array, whereas gfc_string_to_single_character expects a pointer > wrapping aroun

<    1   2   3   >