From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 9E1153858D34; Fri,  3 Jul 2020 10:12:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9E1153858D34
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1593771156;
 bh=o0qHMqoNNyPWBeS9DhKnPCAQMNvuXUA2gRF6UhTn39Q=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=PJw9Y3p7KR6lG1ll3bvBrwz0GzzKwAfpGLxM0nXB/JL1tyCQCfW9ZEVMB8/sFrmH7
 8ZMCMNdSMa55YPcxcHswCoaqAuXDyI6GmgqVSEf67oW0DBr7GSa9/bZgAedw0JkbiK
 Q7F//nECHYdAlGJTsVkIQAZQ1J0pDFFQUm90cWdI=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/95706] New test case gfortran.dg/pr95690.f90 fails
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:12:36 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-95706-4-MU8Qw7u7nM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95706-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95706-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:12:36 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95706

--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I added Solaris to the list of targets that see the error on line 5.  Add=
 it
> wherever your target sees it.

This has almost certainly nothing to do with Solaris per se, but just
piles hack upon hack without trying to understand why the test FAILs on
some targets, but not on others.

So far, we have failure reports for at least
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf,
s390x-ibm-linux-gnu, aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu, arm-none-linux-gnueabi,
powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0, ia64-suse-linux-gnu, m68k-unknown-linux-gnu.

This needs to be analyzed, not hacked around.  Besides, the patch is
supposed to be posted to gcc-patches.=