This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: The future of gfortran maintenance.
Philippe Schaffnit wrote:
> Thanks a lot for pointing that to me, I hadn't even noticed it was
> labelled as "ice-on-invalid-code".
>
> I believe the orginal code to be valid: several compilers happily sail
> through it, even the Lahey one at its pickiest find nothing to report
> about it! This part (of the original code) is unfortunately very
> convoluted (...), and I wasn't able to reduce it, FX was kind enough to
> do it for me, but it could that I missed something: could you point out
> to me the invalid bit please? If it's wrong in the original code, then
> that's the end of the story (but I find it hard to believe)...
Maybe I should have been more explicit: your bug was determined to be a
duplicate of PR 19546, and the error message you sent makes me believe that
this was a correct analysis. Since your bug report was incorrectly reduced
firstly (to invalid code), another bug was found, this is what your PR 21877
is now about.
- Tobi