On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 02:51:08PM +0100, Dominique d'Humi??res wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Although I have not strong objection to your proposed patch,
> I???ld prefer the following one
The patch is fine. Need a ChangeLog entry.
(patch elided)
>
> Now both patches are just papering over the real
Hi Dominique,
(1) Why is this block reached when compiling with -ffrontend-optimize, but not
with -fno-frontend-optimize (Thomas)?
The problem here is that gfc_variable_attr is called (indirectly)
during optimize_assignment. In this case, this causes the ICE
because of the existing error con
Hi Steve,
Although I have not strong objection to your proposed patch, I’ld prefer the
following one
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/primary.c 2015-10-18 13:07:28.0 +0200
+++ gcc/fortran/primary.c 2015-11-13 23:32:08.0 +0100
@@ -2194,7 +2194,7 @@ check_substring:
symbol_attr
On 11/11/2015 10:34 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> This probably falls under the "obviously correct" moniker.
> It has been built and tested on i386-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
>
> The patch removes a gfc_internal_error(). I suspect that it
> was originally put into gfortran to cover "correctly written
>
This probably falls under the "obviously correct" moniker.
It has been built and tested on i386-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
The patch removes a gfc_internal_error(). I suspect that it
was originally put into gfortran to cover "correctly written
valid Fortran code cannot possibly ever hit this line
