This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/59910] ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:5327
- From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:36:57 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/59910] ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:5327
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-59910-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > A patch to fix the problem exposed by code in comment #1
> > has been committed to trunk. Same patch does not fix
> > 5-branch. Closing as fixed.
>
> It does for me provided the patch is applied at the proper location:
>
> @@ -2657,6 +2657,12 @@ gfc_match_structure_constructor (gfc_sym
>
> Applying the patch with patch -p0 -i patch-59910 put the fix in the wrong
> location
>
> @@ -245,6 +245,12 @@ match_integer_constant (gfc_expr **resul
>
> Regtesting in progress. Any objection if I do the back port?
This is a little confusing. The original patch is in
gfc_match_structure_constructor (). Is your new patch still in this function
for 5 or in a different function? Maybe post your clean diff so we can
understand better. Is the original patch in the wrong place?