https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91443, which changed state.
Bug 91443 Summary: -Wargument-mismatch does not catch mismatch for global
procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Bug 91390 depends on bug 91443, which changed state.
Bug 91443 Summary: -Wargument-mismatch does not catch mismatch for global
procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Having had occasion to look at a few hundred multi-line error messages
today, I have now changed my mind on what I would consider best :-)
I now think different colors for primary and secondary error message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46724&action=edit
Something that sort of works...
and also extends the error message with a reference to where the
mismatching pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46726&action=edit
Much better patch
It a) does not try to do two things at once, and b) has passed
regression-testing at least on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> The patch I've just attached ought to do this (though it's just a crude
> prototype - it only works for the gfc_error_opt case).
>
> With that caveat, how does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> This diff will silence warnings for explicit conversion
> using REAL() and INT() for the -Wconversion option. It
> does not silence warnings for -Wconversion-extr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Look in the gcc sources, under gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Can you show the output of your compilation when adding -ftime-report
to the options? This will give us an idea of where the CPU cycles
are burned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Fortran compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
This should be exposed by
module y
contains
subroutine bar(a,n)
real, dimension(n), intent(inout) :: a
a = a + 1.0
end subroutine bar
end module y
module x
use y
contains
subroutine foo(a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Yes, but in the WRF file I see no assumed-shape arrays but all
> appear to be of dimension(low:high,...) style.
One or two dimensional?
Code like
subroutine foo(a)
real, intent(in), dimension(*) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > One or two dimensional?
>
> Two or three dimensional. I didn't review all callees and
> arguments but there seems to be a 1:1 match, so both
> callers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Yes, the treatment of namespaces was dogdgy.
This is fixed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01438.html (not
yet reviewed).
HJ, does this patch also fix the original test case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> The function check_externals_expr
> is somewhat odd. It is declared to return int, but all return
> statements are 'return 0'. This suggests to me that proper
> declar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
Simply passing on a huge number of arguments is not enough to trigger this.
Here's a perl script to generate test cases:
while ($n=shift)
{
open FOO, ">foo-$n.f90";
print FOO <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91537
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Comment on attachment 46748
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46748
Leak demonstration program
Here's the output on current trunk:
862548
872548
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91537
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Aug 24 21:12:45 2019
New Revision: 274902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Aug 24 21:12:45 2019
New Revision: 274902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Let's see.
We could do this like the function elimination pass, making
a list of eligible gfc_expr *, and then iterating over it
to find duplicates.
If we put in the gfc_expr * from top to bottom,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
The problem with the test case is that both sum and count
are transformational functions, i.e. they reduce the
rank.
So, ideally this would be translated into
real sum = 0.;
int count = 0;
for (i=0; i 0) {
: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I've just been bitten by a strange segfault, which turned out to be
due to insufficient stack space with -Ofast (running nf from the
Polyhedron benchmarks).
We really n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Did you try if -fstack-clash-protection provides a better failure mode? It
> might be required to reliably detect that "end of the stack" case.
No, just a SIGS
||2019-08-26
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 26 20:05:32 2019
New Revision: 274937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 26 20:05:32 2019
New Revision: 274937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91390, which changed state.
Bug 91390 Summary: treatment of extra parameter in a subroutine call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2019-08-27
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
After r274937, the new flag -fallow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46776
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46776&action=edit
Concept patch
Here's what a patch could look like.
With the test case, it yields
multi.f90:2186:23:
2186 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #11)
> Error: Type mismatch between actual argument at (1) and actual
> argument at (2) (REAL(8)/REAL(16))
That sounds _much_ better (and is also shorter). When I am b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> The current solution is a bit annoying for implicitly-derived interfaces.
>
> Consider a code like:
>
> module foo
> implicit none
> type t1
> integer :: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig ---
A problem with such code is that type violations like that are likely to cause
actual wrong code issues because much of the aliasing analysis is type based...
What I could do is to
a) restrict the number o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
,
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Jerry, I am away from my computer at the moment.
Does zhis ring a bell?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91646
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
See PR 91556. In the meantime, use -fallow-argument-mismatch .
I am working on a better error message.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
||2019-09-12
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
We could look at https://www.gnu.org/software/libsigsegv/ how to
do this, or maybe even include this as a prerequisite for libgfortran.
Haven't looked in detail yet...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Sep 14 20:40:55 2019
New Revision: 275719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91557
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Sep 14 20:40:55 2019
New Revision: 275719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-14 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91557
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 08:43:42 2019
New Revision: 275726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275726&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91556
* gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 14:57:48 2019
New Revision: 275729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91550
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 19:48:41 2019
New Revision: 275733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275733&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 20:01:44 2019
New Revision: 275734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 15 22:35:40 2019
New Revision: 275737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-15 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91557
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2019-09-16
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Confirmed.
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mark Wieczorek from comment #0)
> I am writing about a possible bug in the gfortran GCC9 optimizer on macOS
> (installed via brew).
>
> Before going into the details, I note that my code (SHTOOLS/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Sep 18 17:32:08 2019
New Revision: 275891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Sep 18 17:39:33 2019
New Revision: 275892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69815
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
|WAITING |NEW
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> No activity since more than two years. IMO this should go under the section
>
> 6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|Reduce gfortran stack usage |[ABI cleanup] Reduce
|for procedures doing IO |gfortran stack usage for
||procedures doing IO
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #55 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #45)
> Created attachment 45510 [details]
> An updated patch
HJ, do you plan on committing these?
||2019-09-19
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Should be easy to fix.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following program
module logmod
use ISO_C_BINDING
use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
implicit none
private
integer i
integer, parameter, public :: minkind = LOGICAL_KINDS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> But is it valid fortran?
I had to check, but yes.
LOGICAL is an elemental type conversion function, which has only constant
arguments, so it should be simplifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 3 12:39:42 2019
New Revision: 276506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-03 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/84487
* trans-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> Somewhat reduced:
>
> program main
> integer, dimension(2), parameter :: n=[1,4]
> logical, parameter :: a = logical(.true.,minval([(n(i),i=1,4)]))
> end pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
After r276506 (PR84487) the __def_init variables are no longer in
the read-only section, but in the BSS instead. This was done because they they
could become excessively large. However, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following code
program main
integer :: a(2)
a(1) = 1
a(2) = 42
call foo(a(1:1),1)
if (a(2) .ne. 42) stop "bletchful"
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92000
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92000
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
From F18, 15.5.2.4 Ordinary dummy variables
14 If the actual argument is a noncoindexed
||2019-10-05
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 47000
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47000&action=edit
config.status
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 46999
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46999&action=edit
config.log
With current cygwin and current trunk, I get
gcc -c -g -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 47001
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47001&action=edit
plural.i from adding -save-temps by hand to the Makefile in intl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
If there's anything else needed, let me know.
In the meantime, back to booting Linux :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Oct 7 20:10:22 2019
New Revision: 276672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-07 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Oct 7 20:12:00 2019
New Revision: 276673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-07 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
To save space in rodata, the artificial __def_init variables are no longer
put into .rodata, but in BSS. For most variables, these are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 84487, which changed state.
Bug 84487 Summary: [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto
with r254427
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84613
Bug 84613 depends on bug 84487, which changed state.
Bug 84487 Summary: [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto
with r254427
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51751
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91984
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
*** Bug 92020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92020
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91984
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Of course, don't forget the xfail on typebound_call_22.f03.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66910
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-09-06 00:00:00 |2019-10-7
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koe
|NEW
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed||2019-10-13
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|internal
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
1101 - 1200 of 3746 matches
Mail list logo
