* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-04-20 19:37 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-20 19:39 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-20 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
Has this been fixed accidentally? Maybe someone can bisect
so that one can identify the commit that might be backported
to fix the regression.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-04-20 19:37 ` [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-20 19:39 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-20 22:01 ` [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-20 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
Read: does not ICE; just gives an appropriate error message:
z1.f90:8:6:
8 | function f(x)
| 1
Error: Interface mismatch in global procedure 'f' at (1): POINTER attribute
mismatch in function result
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-04-20 19:37 ` [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-20 19:39 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-20 22:01 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-08 10:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-20 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
|maybe_canonicalize_comparis |maybe_canonicalize_comparis
|on_1, at fold-const.c:8845 |on_1, at fold-const.c:8845
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
> Has this been fixed accidentally? Maybe someone can bisect
> so that one can identify the commit that might be backported
> to fix the regression.
This probably was
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2298af0800b292f028298c1eaec42fd3033c4b9b
the fix for PR94090.
I think this is something that could be backported.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-20 22:01 ` [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-06-08 10:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-08 12:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-08 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
<markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5dc3986103d8908c802e940dea8f2def3a6989c2
commit r11-1066-g5dc3986103d8908c802e940dea8f2def3a6989c2
Author: Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Thu Jun 4 05:53:31 2020 +0100
Fortran : ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 PR92993
This issue has been fixed by PR94090. Add test case to ensure that
this does not re-occur.
2020-06-08 Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/92993
* gfortran.dg/pr92993.f90: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-08 10:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-06-08 12:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-08 12:48 ` markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-11 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-08 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
<markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4f719b4e1f14016dfc777227e42bd1080245248
commit r10-8263-ge4f719b4e1f14016dfc777227e42bd1080245248
Author: Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Thu Jun 4 05:53:31 2020 +0100
Fortran : ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 PR92993
This issue has been fixed by PR94090. Add test case to ensure that
this does not re-occur.
2020-06-08 Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/92993
* gfortran.dg/pr92993.f90: New test.
(cherry picked from commit 5dc3986103d8908c802e940dea8f2def3a6989c2)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-08 12:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-06-08 12:48 ` markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-11 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-08 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
> > Has this been fixed accidentally? Maybe someone can bisect
> > so that one can identify the commit that might be backported
> > to fix the regression.
>
> This probably was
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2298af0800b292f028298c1eaec42fd3033c4b9b
>
> the fix for PR94090.
>
> I think this is something that could be backported.
I tried this see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054462.html
It won't be backported to gcc-9 and gcc-8 see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054469.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845
[not found] <bug-92993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-08 12:48 ` markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-06-11 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-11 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So, if we're not backporting any further, we might as well mark it
as fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread