From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48198 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2019 14:40:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 48184 invoked by uid 89); 15 Sep 2019 14:40:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:RgyGbrS, H*f:Z_xT7wUfn, H*i:Z_xT7wUfn, H*f:sk:RgyGbrS X-HELO: troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.95.76.21) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 14:40:23 +0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8FEeL4V001891 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x8FEeLt9001890; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 14:40:00 -0000 From: Steve Kargl To: Paul Richard Thomas Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR91588 - ICE in check_inquiry, at fortran/expr.c:2673 Message-ID: <20190915144021.GA1867@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00909.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:40:02PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > The attached bootstraps and regtests on FC30/x86_64 - OK for trunk? > > It strikes me that this should be backported since the bug is rather > fundamental and ispresent all the way back to version 4.8. An obvious > question is how far back? To 8-branch? > OK. If the patch applies cleanly, go back to 8-branch. -- Steve