From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-333459-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19412 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2010 18:17:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 19403 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2010 18:17:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:17:12 +0000
From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/45961] [4.6 Regression] [OOP] Problem with polymorphic type-bound operators
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
In-Reply-To: <bug-45961-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-45961-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:17:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00848.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101010181700.2oadQmGcs0EdwUynr56NHChbYc3MUcmCDIt5sjf_w9I@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961

--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-10 18:17:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The patch in comment #1 fixes the pr without regression. Note that the test in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-10/msg00104.html gives 'T' at run-time

... which I guess is the correct answer :)


> while the reduced tests in comment #0 and in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-10/msg00120.html give a "Segmentation fault"
> at run-time (AFAICT the pointers point to nothing).

Right. They were just meant to isolate the compile-time failure (without making
sense at run time).

Thanks for testing, Dominique! I will commit the patch as obvious soon.