From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-477449-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8261 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2015 15:19:56 -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 8155 invoked by uid 48); 16 Feb 2015 15:19:52 -0000
From: "matt at gneilson dot plus.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/65024] [4.9/5 Regression] [OOP] ICE concerning unlimited polymorphic pointer
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:00 -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: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: matt at gneilson dot plus.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65024-4-6J1r37fqWM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65024-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65024-4@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/msg01782.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024

--- Comment #9 from homgran <matt at gneilson dot plus.com> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation
> > > of unlimited polymorphism.
> >
> > In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/5 Regression]' tag from the summary title?
> 
> Please don't do that.
> 
> (1) The ICE for the reduced test in comment 2 is a regression. Leave some
> time to Janus to look at the problem:
> 
> > > > The ICE for the reduced test in comment 2 [...]
> > > Started at r207986.
> >
> > Huh, that was me committing a patch for PR 60234. Guess I should take a look
> > (but will probably not manage to do so before the weekend ...)
> 
> (2) There are presently more than 800 open PRs, but less than 40 regressions
> that can be fixed during stage 4.

No problem, I was just checking. This is my first time using bugzilla, so I'm
happy to just sit back and observe (perhaps making the occasional comment). I
certainly don't want to get in anybody's way!