public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>)
@ 2008-04-05 8:14 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 14:57 ` [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 more replies)
0 siblings, 16 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-05 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The following program gives an ICE w/ 4.3.0 and 4.4.0.
ff.f90:9: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
==29131== Invalid read of size 4
==29131== at 0x4C0459: gfc_is_nodesc_array (trans-types.c:1031)
==29131== by 0x4C2DE5: gfc_sym_type (trans-types.c:1576)
==29131== by 0x4C2FD7: gfc_get_function_type (trans-types.c:2009)
==29131== by 0x4C3023: gfc_get_function_type (trans-types.c:2005)
program test
implicit none
interface
subroutine one(a)
integer a(:)
end subroutine one
end interface
contains
subroutine foo(f)
procedure(one) :: f
end subroutine foo
end program test
--
Summary: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-05 14:57 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 18:03 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-05 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-05 14:56 -------
(Problem was found when creating PR 35831.)
Janus, do you have time to look at it?
The invalid read happens for in gfc_is_nodesc_array. The problem is that
sym->attr.dimension == 1, sym->dummy == 1 but sym->as == NULL. This of cause
fails for:
if (sym->as->type != AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE)
Hereby, sym->name is the dummy argument "a".
First attempt of solving. This gets past the ICE, but the produced code which
gives wrong results.
----------------------
--- symbol.c (revision 133937)
+++ symbol.c (working copy)
@@ -3626,5 +3643,6 @@ add_proc_interface (gfc_symbol *sym, ifs
args based on the args of a given named interface. */
-void copy_formal_args (gfc_symbol *dest, gfc_symbol *src)
+void
+copy_formal_args (gfc_symbol *dest, gfc_symbol *src)
{
gfc_formal_arglist *head = NULL;
@@ -3649,4 +3667,5 @@ void copy_formal_args (gfc_symbol *dest,
formal_arg->sym->attr = curr_arg->sym->attr;
formal_arg->sym->ts = curr_arg->sym->ts;
+ formal_arg->sym->as = curr_arg->sym->as;
/* If this isn't the first arg, set up the next ptr. For the
----------------------
That the result is wrong can be seen with the following program. ubound of the
array is 32 instead of 3:
----------------------
module m
contains
subroutine one(a)
integer a(:)
print *, lbound(a), ubound(a), size(a)
if ((lbound(a,dim=1) /= 1) .or. (ubound(a,dim=1) /= 3)) &
call abort()
print *, a
if (any(a /= [1,2,3])) call abort()
end subroutine one
end module m
program test
use m
implicit none
call foo(one)
contains
subroutine foo(f)
! The following interface block is needed
! for NAG f95 as it wrongly does not like
! use-associated interfaces for PROCEDURE
! (It is not needed for gfortran)
interface
subroutine one(a)
integer a(:)
end subroutine
end interface
procedure(one) :: f
call f([1,2,3])
end subroutine foo
end program test
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jaydub66 at gmail dot com
Keywords| |wrong-code
Summary|ICE with |ICE with
|PROCEDURE(<interface>) |PROCEDURE(<interface>)
| |containing array formal
| |arguments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 14:57 ` [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-05 18:03 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-04-06 12:45 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaydub66 at gmail dot com @ 2008-04-05 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-04-05 18:03 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> @@ -3649,4 +3667,5 @@ void copy_formal_args (gfc_symbol *dest,
> formal_arg->sym->attr = curr_arg->sym->attr;
> formal_arg->sym->ts = curr_arg->sym->ts;
> + formal_arg->sym->as = curr_arg->sym->as;
I guess one should rather use:
formal_arg->sym->as = gfc_copy_array_spec (curr_arg->sym->as);
With this addition your test case works at least with an explicit-size array:
integer a(1:3)
With an assumed-size "integer a(:)" it still fails.
Will try to find out more tomorrow.
> module m
> contains
> subroutine one(a)
> integer a(:)
> print *, lbound(a), ubound(a), size(a)
> if ((lbound(a,dim=1) /= 1) .or. (ubound(a,dim=1) /= 3)) &
> call abort()
> print *, a
> if (any(a /= [1,2,3])) call abort()
> end subroutine one
> end module m
>
> program test
> use m
> implicit none
> call foo(one)
> contains
> subroutine foo(f)
> ! The following interface block is needed
> ! for NAG f95 as it wrongly does not like
> ! use-associated interfaces for PROCEDURE
> ! (It is not needed for gfortran)
> interface
> subroutine one(a)
> integer a(:)
> end subroutine
> end interface
> procedure(one) :: f
> call f([1,2,3])
> end subroutine foo
> end program test
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 14:57 ` [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 18:03 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
@ 2008-04-06 12:45 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 22:02 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-06 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-04-06 12:44:34
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-06 12:45 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-07 22:02 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-04-08 8:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaydub66 at gmail dot com @ 2008-04-07 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-04-07 22:01 -------
Another thing I just noticed is that dummy procedures are currently not checked
for being called with the right arguments (-> compare_actual_formal), e.g. in
the above test case "call f([1,2,3])" could also be called with a different
number of arguments like "call f(1,2)" without any error message.
In fact this check is currently omitted for any procedure which has the
EXTERNAL attribute (which includes all procedures declared via the
"PROCEDURE()::" statement). But I guess this check should better be omitted
only for procedures which have an implicit interface, right?
This can be cured with the following patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c (revision 133905)
+++ gcc/fortran/interface.c (working copy)
@@ -2419,8 +2419,7 @@ gfc_procedure_use (gfc_symbol *sym, gfc_
}
}
- if (sym->attr.external
- || sym->attr.if_source == IFSRC_UNKNOWN)
+ if (sym->attr.if_source == IFSRC_UNKNOWN)
{
gfc_actual_arglist *a;
for (a = *ap; a; a = a->next)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-07 22:02 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
@ 2008-04-08 8:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-09 18:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-08 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08 08:36 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Another thing I just noticed is that dummy procedures are currently not checked
> for being called with the right arguments (-> compare_actual_formal),
If we are lucky this fixes PR 35831.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-08 8:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-09 18:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-05-15 21:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaydub66 at gmail dot com @ 2008-04-09 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-04-09 18:48 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> If we are lucky this fixes PR 35831.
Actually it does not, but I think I know how to fix it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-09 18:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
@ 2008-05-15 21:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-05-28 21:29 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaydub66 at gmail dot com @ 2008-05-15 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-05-15 21:48 -------
I noticed that while the test case from comment #1 still fails, the following
variation actually works with the patch from comment #2:
module m
contains
subroutine one(a)
integer a(:)
print *, lbound(a), ubound(a), size(a)
if ((lbound(a,dim=1) /= 1) .or. (ubound(a,dim=1) /= 3)) &
call abort()
print *, a
if (any(a /= [1,2,3])) call abort()
end subroutine one
end module m
program test
use m
implicit none
call foo(one)
contains
subroutine foo(f)
interface
subroutine f(a)
integer a(:)
end subroutine
end interface
call f([1,2,3])
end subroutine foo
end program test
The only difference being that f is specified by an INTERFACE statement instead
of a PROCEDURE statement.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-15 21:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
@ 2008-05-28 21:29 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-28 21:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-28 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:28 -------
Subject: Bug 35830
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 28 21:27:56 2008
New Revision: 136130
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136130
Log:
2008-05-28 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/36325
PR fortran/35830
* interface.c (gfc_procedure_use): Enable argument checking for
external procedures with explicit interface.
* symbol.c (check_conflict): Fix conflict checking for externals.
(copy_formal_args): Fix handling of arrays.
* resolve.c (resolve_specific_f0, resolve_specific_s0): Fix handling
of intrinsics.
* parse.c (parse_interface): Non-abstract INTERFACE statement implies
EXTERNAL attribute.
2008-05-28 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/36325
PR fortran/35830
* gfortran.dg/interface_23.f90: New.
* gfortran.dg/gomp/reduction3.f90: Fixed invalid code.
* gfortran.dg/proc_decl_12.f90: New:
* gfortran.dg/external_procedures_1.f90: Fixed error message.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/interface_23.f90
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_12.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/external_procedures_1.f90
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/reduction3.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-28 21:29 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-28 21:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-31 9:17 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-28 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:34 -------
rev. 136130 contains the fixes from comment #2 and comment #3, but the test
case from comment #1 is still failing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-28 21:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-31 9:17 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-02 8:45 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-31 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-31 09:17 -------
Ok, apparently rev. 136130 *did* in fact also fix the test case in comment #1
(although I somehow assumed otherwise), and therefore this whole PR is fixed.
Should I add another test case with an assumed shape array (or simply change
proc_decl_12.f90 to have an assumed shape instead of an explicit shape array)?
Or is proc_decl_12.f90 enough as it is?
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2008-04-06 12:44:34 |2008-05-31 09:17:07
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-31 9:17 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-02 8:45 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-07 17:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-02 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-02 08:44 -------
> Should I add another test case with an assumed shape array (or simply change
> proc_decl_12.f90 to have an assumed shape instead of an explicit shape array)?
> Or is proc_decl_12.f90 enough as it is?
In principle, no test case should be removed - only new ones added. (I try to
find time this evening to look at the PRs and at your patch,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-06/msg00001.html )
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-02 8:45 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-07 17:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-07 17:31 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-07 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07 17:04 -------
> rev. 136130 contains the fixes from comment #2 and comment #3, but the test
> case from comment #1 is still failing.
Diff between dumped tree from comment #6 (working) and comment #1 (failing):
- f (&parm.38);
+ D.1203 = _gfortran_internal_pack (&parm.38);
+ f (D.1203);
[...]
That means that the argument of f is regarded as assumed-size array ("a(*)")
instead of as assumed-size array ("a(:)"). This happens for instance when the
interface of "f" is not known (or when as->type is wrong).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-07 17:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-07 17:31 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-07 17:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-07 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07 17:30 -------
It turned out to be a attr-related thing. f needs to be 0 in the following and
it was 1:
trans-expr.c:2525 gfc_conv_function_call
int f;
f = (fsym != NULL)
&& !(fsym->attr.pointer || fsym->attr.allocatable)
&& fsym->as->type != AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE;
f = f || !sym->attr.always_explicit;
The problem is that sym->attr.always_explicit is 0 instead of 1.
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (Revision 136517)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -7905,6 +7905,7 @@ resolve_symbol (gfc_symbol *sym)
sym->ts.interface = ifc;
sym->attr.function = ifc->attr.function;
sym->attr.subroutine = ifc->attr.subroutine;
+ sym->attr.always_explicit = ifc->attr.always_explicit;
copy_formal_args (sym, ifc);
}
else if (sym->ts.interface->name[0] != '\0')
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-07 17:31 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-07 17:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-07 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07 17:43 -------
MINE :-)
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|janus at gcc dot gnu dot org|burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-07 17:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-08 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 07:49 -------
Subject: Bug 35830
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jun 8 07:48:53 2008
New Revision: 136554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136554
Log:
2008-06-08 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/35830
* resolve.c (resolve_symbol): Copy more attributes for
PROCEDUREs with interfaces.
2008-06-08 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/35830
* proc_decl_13.f90: New.
* proc_decl_14.f90: New.
* proc_decl_15.f90: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_13.f90
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_14.f90
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_15.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-08 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 07:50 -------
FIXED on the trunk (4.4.0).
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-06-08 7:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-04-05 8:14 [Bug fortran/35830] New: ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 14:57 ` [Bug fortran/35830] ICE with PROCEDURE(<interface>) containing array formal arguments burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 18:03 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-04-06 12:45 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 22:02 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-04-08 8:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-09 18:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-05-15 21:49 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-05-28 21:29 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-28 21:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-31 9:17 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-02 8:45 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-07 17:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-07 17:31 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-07 17:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-08 7:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).