From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414369-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4191 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2013 13:56:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 3820 invoked by uid 48); 6 Feb 2013 13:56:08 -0000
From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/55978] [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:56:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55978-4-SHHynl5i36@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55978-4@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
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: 2013-02/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978

--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 13:56:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> It seems to work just as well as the patch in comment #18 and is much simpler.
> Also it could catch this sort of thing in other situations as well. So I would
> say that it is preferable over the previous patches.
> 
> Will test for regressions (but don't expect any).

The patch in comment 21, like the previous ones in comment 14 and 18, is free
of testsuite regressions.