[Bug fortran/41139] New: [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[Bug fortran/41139] New: [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PROGRAM test

 PROCEDURE(add), POINTER :: f

 ! Passing the function works
 print *,greater(4.,add(1.,2.))

 ! Passing the procedure pointer fails
 f => add
 print *,greater(4.,f(1.,2.))

CONTAINS

 REAL FUNCTION add(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x,y
   print *,"add:",x,y
   add = x+y
 END FUNCTION add

 LOGICAL FUNCTION greater(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x, y
   greater = (x > y)
 END FUNCTION greater

END PROGRAM test


This code produces the following output:

 add:   1.0000000       2.0000000    
 T
 add:   1.0000000       2.0000000    
Segmentation fault


Looking at the ouput of -fdump-tree-original, one can see a difference between
the two calls to 'greater':

      D.1563 = add (&C.1561, &C.1562);
      D.1564 = greater (&C.1560, &D.1563);

      D.1570 = greater (&C.1567, f (&C.1568, &C.1569));

I.e. in the first case a temporary variable is inserted for the result of
'add', while in the second case this is not the case (which is the reason for
the segfault).

gfortran 4.4 behaves correctly.

Reported by Barron Bichon.


-- 
           Summary: [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual
                    argument
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |barron dot bichon at swri
                   |                            |dot org
      Known to fail|                            |4.5.0
      Known to work|                            |4.4.0
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-08-21 13:35 -------
Beware the forbidden recursive I/Os!-(the test hangs on Darwin, see pr30617).
Otherwise, after using a temp for greater, I get a Bus error.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 13:51 -------

> Beware the forbidden recursive I/Os!

This is not the issue here. The following variation has no recursive I/O, but
gives the same segfault:

PROGRAM test

 PROCEDURE(add), POINTER :: f
 logical :: g

 ! Passing the function works
 g=greater(4.,add(1.,2.))
 print *,g

 ! Passing the procedure pointer fails
 f => add
 g=greater(4.,f(1.,2.))
 print *,g

CONTAINS

 REAL FUNCTION add(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x,y
   print *,"add:",x,y
   add = x+y
 END FUNCTION add

 LOGICAL FUNCTION greater(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x, y
   greater = (x > y)
 END FUNCTION greater

END PROGRAM test


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-08-21 13:58 -------
> > Beware the forbidden recursive I/Os!
>
> This is not the issue here. ...

Indeed I know! but 

(1) I had to make the change you have posted in comment #2 to run a test.

(2) The code in comment #0 is illegal and should not be used for the test
suite.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 14:00 -------
Side note: If one constructs an analogous test case with PPCs, this does not
have the missing-temporary problem. But it has a different one:

PROGRAM test

 type :: t
   PROCEDURE(add), POINTER, nopass :: f
 end type
 type(t) :: o
 logical :: g

 ! Passing the function works
 g=greater(4.,add(1.,2.))
 print *,g

 ! Passing the procedure pointer fails
 o%f => add
 g=greater(4.,o%f(1.,2.))
 print *,g

CONTAINS

 REAL FUNCTION add(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x,y
   add = x+y
 END FUNCTION add

 LOGICAL FUNCTION greater(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x, y
   print *,"greater:",x,y
   greater = (x > y)
 END FUNCTION greater

END PROGRAM test


The output is:

 greater:   4.0000000       3.0000000    
 T
 greater:   4.0000000     -1.49897304E-22
 T

The dump shows the reason for this (a double '&'):

    D.1571 = o.f;
    D.1572 = D.1571 (&C.1569, &C.1570);
    g = (logical(kind=4)) greater (&C.1568, &&D.1572);


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 14:03 -------

> (1) I had to make the change you have posted in comment #2 to run a test.
> 
> (2) The code in comment #0 is illegal and should not be used for the test
> suite.

Of course. Thanks for pointing this out :)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 14:50 -------
This simple patch fixes comment #2:

Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    (revision 150987)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    (working copy)
@@ -2679,6 +2679,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gf
                }
              else if (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
                       && e->symtree->n.sym->result
+                      && e->symtree->n.sym->result != e->symtree->n.sym
                       && e->symtree->n.sym->result->attr.proc_pointer)
                {
                  /* Functions returning procedure pointers.  */


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 15:11 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
>     D.1571 = o.f;
>     D.1572 = D.1571 (&C.1569, &C.1570);
>     g = (logical(kind=4)) greater (&C.1568, &&D.1572);

Btw, it seems unnecessary to me that every PPC call generates a temporary
(D.1571 is this case). This is fixed by the following patchlet:

Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    (revision 150987)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    (working copy)
@@ -3512,8 +3513,7 @@ gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_e
   e2 = gfc_copy_expr (e);
   e2->expr_type = EXPR_VARIABLE;
   gfc_conv_expr (&comp_se, e2);
-  comp_se.expr = build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
-  return gfc_evaluate_now (comp_se.expr, &se->pre);  
+  return build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
 }




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-08-21 17:08 -------
With the patch in comment #7, compiling gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c fails with:

...
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
../../gcc-4.5-work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c: In function
'gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp':
../../gcc-4.5-work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:3508:32: error: unused parameter
'se'
...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 18:02 -------
Working: 2009-07-10, r149458
Failing: 2009-07-17, r149734


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 18:03 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Working: 2009-07-10, r149458
> Failing: 2009-07-17, r149734
Wrong PR - sorry, that should go to PR debug/40660


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-21 20:27 -------
Here is another variant of the test case which fails at runtime:

PROGRAM test

 type :: t
   PROCEDURE(three), POINTER, nopass :: f
 end type
 type(t) :: o
 logical :: g

 o%f => three
 g=greater(4.,o%f())
 print *,g

CONTAINS

 REAL FUNCTION three()
   three = 3.
 END FUNCTION

 LOGICAL FUNCTION greater(x,y)
   REAL, INTENT(in) :: x, y
   print *,"greater:",x,y
   greater = (x > y)
 END FUNCTION greater

END PROGRAM test


The dump shows:

    g = (logical(kind=4)) greater (&C.1561, &o.f);


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-08-22 08:57 -------
In order to avoid the error reported in comment #8, I have tested the following
patches:

(1)

Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c      2009-08-21 17:41:19.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    2009-08-21 19:20:16.000000000 +0200
@@ -2679,6 +2679,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gf
                }
              else if (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
                       && e->symtree->n.sym->result
+                      && e->symtree->n.sym->result != e->symtree->n.sym
                       && e->symtree->n.sym->result->attr.proc_pointer)
                {
                  /* Functions returning procedure pointers.  */
@@ -3504,7 +3505,7 @@ gfc_conv_statement_function (gfc_se * se
 /* Return the backend_decl for a procedure pointer component.  */

 tree
-gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *e)
+gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (__attribute__((unused)) gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *e)
 {
   gfc_se comp_se;
   gfc_expr *e2;
@@ -3512,8 +3513,7 @@ gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_e
   e2 = gfc_copy_expr (e);
   e2->expr_type = EXPR_VARIABLE;
   gfc_conv_expr (&comp_se, e2);
-  comp_se.expr = build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
-  return gfc_evaluate_now (comp_se.expr, &se->pre);  
+  return build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
 }

(2)

Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c      2009-08-21 11:46:44.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    2009-08-21 21:38:04.000000000 +0200
@@ -1508,7 +1508,7 @@ conv_function_val (gfc_se * se, gfc_symb
   tree tmp;

   if (gfc_is_proc_ptr_comp (expr, NULL))
-    tmp = gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (se, expr);
+    tmp = gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (expr);
   else if (sym->attr.dummy)
     {
       tmp = gfc_get_symbol_decl (sym);
@@ -2679,6 +2679,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gf
                }
              else if (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
                       && e->symtree->n.sym->result
+                      && e->symtree->n.sym->result != e->symtree->n.sym
                       && e->symtree->n.sym->result->attr.proc_pointer)
                {
                  /* Functions returning procedure pointers.  */
@@ -3504,7 +3505,7 @@ gfc_conv_statement_function (gfc_se * se
 /* Return the backend_decl for a procedure pointer component.  */

 tree
-gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *e)
+gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_expr *e)
 {
   gfc_se comp_se;
   gfc_expr *e2;
@@ -3512,8 +3513,7 @@ gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_e
   e2 = gfc_copy_expr (e);
   e2->expr_type = EXPR_VARIABLE;
   gfc_conv_expr (&comp_se, e2);
-  comp_se.expr = build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
-  return gfc_evaluate_now (comp_se.expr, &se->pre);  
+  return build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
 }


Index: gcc/fortran/trans-tmt.h
===================================================================
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h      2009-05-10 12:01:34.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h    2009-08-21 21:38:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ tree gfc_trans_code (gfc_code *);
 tree gfc_trans_assign (gfc_code *);
 tree gfc_trans_pointer_assign (gfc_code *);
 tree gfc_trans_init_assign (gfc_code *);
-tree gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *, gfc_expr *);
+tree gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_expr *);

 /* trans-stmt.c */
 tree gfc_trans_cycle (gfc_code *);

Both allow gfortran to be built, they fix the segmentation fault reported in
comment #2, but not the wrong code for comments #4 and #11.  With the second
patch, my tests passed and gfortran regtested fine (powerpc-apple-darwin9).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-22 09:19 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> @@ -3512,8 +3513,7 @@ gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_e
>    e2 = gfc_copy_expr (e);
>    e2->expr_type = EXPR_VARIABLE;
>    gfc_conv_expr (&comp_se, e2);
> -  comp_se.expr = build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
> -  return gfc_evaluate_now (comp_se.expr, &se->pre);  
> +  return build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
>  }

This seems to work in practice, but I think the dump looks not quite right for
the PPC call. Dominique, can you post your dump for comment #4 (especially the
call to o%f)?

Btw, I have a patch for the remaining trouble in comment #4 and #11.


-- 

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|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-08-22 09:19:15
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-08-22 09:27 -------
> Dominique, can you post your dump for comment #4 (especially the call to o%f)?

Is this what you want?

  o.f = add;
  {
    real(kind=4) D.1533;
    static real(kind=4) C.1532 = 2.0e+0;
    static real(kind=4) C.1531 = 1.0e+0;
    static real(kind=4) C.1530 = 4.0e+0;

    D.1533 = f (&C.1531, &C.1532);
    g = (logical(kind=4)) greater (&C.1530, &&D.1533);
  }


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-22 09:43 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> Is this what you want?

Jep.

>     D.1533 = f (&C.1531, &C.1532);

In principle the 'f' here should be an 'o.f'. Maybe we can postpone this issue
until the other stuff is fixed (will post a patch soon).

I think the gfc_evaluate_now part was Paul's invention originally. Perhaps he
can give some advice.


-- 

janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-23 21:15 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> >     D.1533 = f (&C.1531, &C.1532);
> 
> In principle the 'f' here should be an 'o.f'.

I opened PR 41149 to track this issue.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-25 14:27 -------
Subject: Bug 41139

Author: janus
Date: Tue Aug 25 14:26:44 2009
New Revision: 151081

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151081
Log:
2009-08-25  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/41139
        * primary.c (gfc_match_varspec): Make sure EXPR_PPC is only used for
        calls to procedure pointer components, other references to procedure
        pointer components are EXPR_VARIABLE.
        * resolve.c (resolve_actual_arglist): Bugfix (there can be calls
without
        actual arglist).
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp): Renamed to 'get_proc_ptr_comp',
        removed argument 'se' and made static. Avoid inserting a temporary
        variable for calling the PPC.
        (conv_function_val): Renamed gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp.
        (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Distinguish functions returning a procedure
        pointer from calls to a procedure pointer. Distinguish calls to
        procedure pointer components from procedure pointer components as
        actual arguments.
        * trans-stmt.h (gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp): Make it static.


2009-08-25  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/41139
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_25.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_18.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_19.f90: New.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_25.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_18.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_19.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/primary.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-25 14:29 -------
Fixed with r151081. Closing.


-- 

janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139

[Bug fortran/41139] [4.5 Regression] a procedure pointer call as actual argument

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-30 02:07 -------
Subject: Bug 41139

Author: hjl
Date: Sun Aug 30 02:06:32 2009
New Revision: 151218

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151218
Log:
2009-08-29  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        Backport from mainline:
        2009-08-26  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR fortran/41162
        * gfortran.dg/pr41162.f: New.

        2009-08-26  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>

        PR middle-end/41163
        * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41163.c: New testcase.

        2009-08-25  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/41139
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_25.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_18.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_19.f90: New.

        2009-08-20  Michael Matz  <matz@suse.de>

        PR fortran/41126
        * gfortran.dg/pr41126.f90: New test.

        2009-08-20  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/41121
        * gfortran.dg/intrinsic_5.f90: New.

        2009-08-19  Jason Merrill  <jason@redhat.com>

        PR c++/41120
        * g++.dg/other/gc4.C: New.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/gc4.C
      - copied unchanged from r151217, trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/gc4.C
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41163.c
      - copied unchanged from r151217,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41163.c
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/intrinsic_5.f90
      - copied unchanged from r151217,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/intrinsic_5.f90
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr41126.f90
      - copied unchanged from r151217,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr41126.f90
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr41162.f
      - copied unchanged from r151216,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr41162.f
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_25.f90
      - copied unchanged from r151217,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_25.f90
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_18.f90
      - copied unchanged from r151217,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_18.f90
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_19.f90
      - copied unchanged from r151217,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_19.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139