Re: Testcase for fixed ICEs

[Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>]

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 00:17, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> > No.
> >
> > RP11483 and PR12481 are both the same except for comments, and are
> > already
>
>      ^ 11843
>
> > sort-of covered by compile/module_common.f90.
>
> Well, the bug in those two cases specifically appeared when the variable
> was not explicitly declared, so that testcase wouldn't have triggered.
> But I understand you that those two PRs should be closed? (I don't think
> I can do this, but I can try)

They are already closed as duplicates.
The original bugs differed because one used "implicit none" in the code, and 
the other use -fimplicit none. Your testcases were identical. The comment 
about declaring a variable with the same name as the common block isn't 
entirely correct.

modules_common.f90 tests the same construct, but in a module instead of a 
procedure. This may have been a separate bug.

Paul