This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/54070] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results
- From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:15:26 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/54070] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-54070-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2014-01-07
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Dominique mentions that the failure of the array test case seems to be
> a regression between Rev. 188654 and 188694. Well, there was only one
> commit during that time (Rev. 188692, 2012-06-16): The one for
> PR 53642 / PR45170: "Ensure that the RHS string length is evaluated
> before the deferred-length LHS is reallocated."
I cannot reproduce that any longer.
> Using my (older) build of Rev. 187316 (2012-05-09), the array test case
> fails with the same error as today, but the scalar example of comment 0
> works. (The dump looks fine and identical to today's trunk plus patch
> of comment 2.)
>
> Thus, the scalar version got broken between 187316 and 188654; the array
> version got repaired after 187316 and got broken again before 188694
> (i.e. with 188692).
The second and third tests in comment 0 give respectively
function f(a)
1
Error: CHARACTER(*) function 'f' at (1) cannot be array-valued
and
function return_string(argument)
1
Error: CHARACTER(*) function 'return_string' at (1) cannot be array-valued
pr54070_2.f90:3.2:
function return_string(argument)
1
Error: CHARACTER(*) function 'return_string' at (1) cannot be array-valued
when compiled with 4.7.3 or 4.7.4 (r206161).
Should I mark this pr as a 4.8/4.9 regression?