From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30339 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2011 17:48:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 30330 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2011 17:48:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 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, 06 Nov 2011 17:48:44 +0000 From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/50640] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_12.f03 -O (internal compiler error) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:48:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00520.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640 --- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-11-06 17:47:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > second > I would prefer to see the bug fixed Certainly. > rather than hidden by any of the above. It wouldn't be hidden by xfailing it, as the xfail would refer to this PR. And this _is_ standard procedure if the fix is more important than errors it uncovers (which of course isn't known until the offending change is known, but if the regression is unimportant sometimes it doesn't matter - probably not the case here as it's an ICE). But the implied question is unanswered: is there work in progress on this regression? I thought the change introducing the regression was known, but apparently not; would it help to triage it?