From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5551 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2015 15:00:15 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5469 invoked by uid 48); 16 Feb 2015 15:00:11 -0000 From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" 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 15:00:00 -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: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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/msg01776.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > 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.