From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-477359-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4325 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2015 07:54:58 -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
Received: (qmail 4271 invoked by uid 48); 16 Feb 2015 07:54:54 -0000
From: "bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/64980] [5 Regression] ICE in trans-expr.c
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:54:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64980-4-4oBBEVBhqo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg01692.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980

--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> > I think this updated patch fixes all mentioned test cases.
> 
> Confirmed, bootstrapped and regtested cleanly.
> 
> > but there are many regressions, which would need to be fixed before
> > it makes sense to test anything on the ARMv7 target:
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/coindexed_3.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2  -lcaf_single -latomic
> > (internal compiler error)
> > ...
> 
> Are these failures regressions caused by your patch?

No, I was refering to the patch from comment#13.

My latest patch causes no visible regressions, including the test cases you
mentioned.

BTW: should we add the original test case from pr64230 the test suite, because
class_allocate_18.f90 failed to spot this regression?