https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99307
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > Reduced test
>
> While -fsanitize=address,undefined does not find anything on
> x86_64-gnu-linux, I do see w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99307
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> I confirm that with that patch our code compiles again, however, more or
> less all functionality fails because of runtime errors about
> Fortran runtime error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> Actually, the last example missed a line that I overeagerly deleted too
> much. This one is the correct reproducer:
> module m
> implicit none
> private
> pub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #28 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #27)
> Created attachment 50432 [details]
> reproducer, down to 6800 lines
Hi Juergen,
Stop! Yesterday's final is just fine. The problem is connected with the logic
se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #30 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50442&action=edit
Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem.. so far :-)
Hi Juergen,
I think that this one does the job... i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #33 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #32)
> Ready for merge?
Hi Juergen,
Daytime work intervened. I will submit to the list today.
Thanks for all your support BTW.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Started with r11-7188-gff6903288d96aa1d.
Thanks, Gerhard and Martin.
Have you ever tried to put a tent up in a storm? Sometimes maintaining gfortran
feels just lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #4)
> > Have you ever tried to put a tent up in a storm?
> ... geez, how difficult and lengthy ...
>
> The number of bug reports is admittedly increasing,
> but the numbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99307
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
The patch was posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055923.html
I'll ping it.
Thanks Richard.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100027
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98534
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98534
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
This needs to be incorporated into the fix for PR100027. I hope that Jose takes
this PR over :-)
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100110
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100110
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50628&action=edit
Fix for the PR
As I thought, the fix is trivial.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84119
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=83118
--- Comment #36 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49412&action=edit
An updated patch
The patch has been evolving... slowly.
I found that dependency_57.f90 segfaulted in runtime so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #37 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #36)
> Created attachment 49412 [details]
> An updated patch
>
> The patch has been evolving... slowly.
>
> I found that dependency_57.f90 segfaulted in runtime so I hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96886
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Ev Drikos from comment #7)
> Created attachment 49659 [details]
> attachment for pr98016-07
>
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 49645 [details]
> > Fix for the PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97920
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49722&action=edit
Tentative patch for the PR
The attached regtests OK and the following runs correctly:
module ur
contains
functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-10
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35718
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
>
> The fix regtests OK. I will commit as 'obvious' with a test case in the next
> day or two.
Cancel that, there is one regression.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97694
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97694
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Please see PR97694 for a patch that fixes both PRs at once.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
>
> > function kn1() result(hm2)
> > complex :: hm(1:2), hm2(1:2)
> > data (hm(md)%re, md=1,2)/1.0, 2.0/
> > hm2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
The example that you give shows that setting the undefined part to zero
certainly is not correct. I updated my tree for the commit and am only just now
rebuilding. It'll be tomorrow before I put this right.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97045
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49272&action=edit
Updated patch
It turned out that with the original patch, character payloads of the unlimited
polymorphic array w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97209
Bug ID: 97209
Summary: TODO: building array references needs a big tidy up
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97209
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Tobias's original suggestion is certainly more concise, although equivalent to
the present code.
I will commit the change today or tomorrow as obvious. It happens that I am
working on trans-expr.c at the momen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49793&action=edit
Fix for the PR
This regtests OK. Testcase:
! { dg-do run }
!
! Test the fix for PR98342.
!
! Contributed by Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97612
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=98408
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92976
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #8)
> As noted by Tobias:
>
> Patch was submitted
> at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-March/054072.html
> but the new mailing had stripped off the 't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96102
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96495
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> > (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #4)
> > > The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm
> > > :
> > >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
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
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|PRINT the array constructed |ICE in
|from implied do-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> > Paul,
> >
> > are you still working on this?
>
> Paul,
>
> this is still one of yours...
Hi Harald,
Hah! I am probably a week or two from getting to it. I have been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98498
Bug ID: 98498
Summary: Interp request: defined operators and unlimited
polymorphic
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98498
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98498
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 94246, which changed state.
Bug 94246 Summary: [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49875&action=edit
Fix for the cases in comments 23 and 24
Hi Damian,
Happy New Year! or I wish you a better one anyway.
I ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49883
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49883&action=edit
Updated versionof the patch
I have rolled in Steve's use of gfc_reduce_init_expr and will submit within the
hour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98534
Bug ID: 98534
Summary: Intrinsic functions failing with unlimited polymorphic
actual arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to José Rui Faustino de Sousa from comment #7)
> Hi all!
>
> Still ICEs with 9/10/11 using -ftrapv -fcheck=bounds
>
> Best regards,
> José Rui
Yes, indeed. This with those compile options
module m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49952&action=edit
Slightly better patch
This gets rid of the regression in gfortran.dg/finalize_29.f08.
However, finalize_25.f90 e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98573
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98565
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472
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=93924
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50057&action=edit
Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem
The attached patch has a fragment of my finalize on assignment pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> Created attachment 50057 [details]
> Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem
>
> The attached patch has a fragment of my finalize on assignment patch in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |REOPENED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38319
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> Related / same issue:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055654.html
Hi Tobias,
Over the weekend, I had a stab at fixing this recent issue. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98897
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=91862
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99065
Bug ID: 99065
Summary: ASSOCIATE function selector expression "no IMPLICIT
type" failure
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> Confirmed – with 'class(*), allocatable :: f(:)' it should be valid (with
> prior assignment).
>
> The problem is in gfc_match_rvalue:
>
> 3737 if (sym->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Fixed on all three branches.
Thanks for the report. I hope that the constraint on class-valued elemental
functions doesn't spoil any code.
Cheers
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109066
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-09
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #11 from Paul
1 - 100 of 709 matches
Mail list logo
