public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 08:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090530082711.25022.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-40011-12313@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #27 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-30 08:27 -------
(In reply to comment #25)
> > types that are identical
> I'm not sure this is related, but note comment #8. Even identical types are not
> identical, unless they are sequence type.
Joost,
No, this is not related. The testing in the front end is more or less OK.
However, the compiler receives more than one delaration of derived types,
either through explicit declaration, host association or use assocation. The
middle-end has to ensure that the same backend_decl is used for each.
Otherwise, when one is assigned to the other, via a defined assignement, it is
found that the TREE_TYPEs are not the same. I have been trying to move the
backend_decls up to global scope so as to ensure that this happens but I am
missing some essential trick somewhere. I'll be asking the experts next week
:-)
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40011
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-30 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-03 19:53 [Bug fortran/40011] New: " dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-04 9:10 ` [Bug fortran/40011] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-04 9:29 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-04 9:31 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-04 17:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-04 21:52 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-04 22:20 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-04 22:44 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-05 4:18 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-05 7:05 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-05 7:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-05 11:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-05 15:57 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-05 18:12 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-05 19:29 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-07 18:00 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-07 18:34 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-08 14:09 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-17 5:12 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-22 13:40 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-25 6:13 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-27 13:03 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-27 14:05 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-05-27 17:52 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-29 15:34 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-29 16:34 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-29 18:42 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-30 8:27 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2009-06-01 18:01 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-01 19:34 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-06-01 19:43 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-06-02 9:29 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-06-02 12:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-06-14 16:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-24 5:39 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-07-24 5:48 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-07-24 10:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-24 10:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-24 10:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-24 11:29 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-07-25 16:53 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-07-26 21:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-28 7:37 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-08-01 13:45 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-03 10:12 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-08-26 9:24 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-08-26 9:35 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-08-26 10:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-08-26 10:34 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-08-26 10:36 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-10-11 12:46 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-12-09 11:51 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-12-09 11:52 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-05-03 10:57 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-05-03 19:24 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 5:11 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 13:13 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-05-26 14:53 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2010-07-18 20:50 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-23 22:16 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-07-23 22:55 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-07-24 8:24 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-07-24 11:11 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-07-24 11:14 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2010-07-24 11:31 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-24 13:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-24 13:46 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-07-24 14:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-24 16:32 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 1:21 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 10:11 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-26 9:53 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-26 13:15 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-40011-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-06-14 15:24 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090530082711.25022.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).