https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #12 from Neil Carlson ---
Paul,
> [...] there are some humdingers going back a long way that I will take a look
> at,
> once I am done with associate.
That would be great, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:577223aebc7acdd31e62b33c1682fe54a622ae27
commit r14-2022-g577223aebc7acdd31e62b33c1682fe54a622ae27
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
>
> (i) Have I got the lot?
>
I believe so.
> (ii) Are there existing PRs for the two most recent?
>
I always try to report the bugs at the same time they go into my
"database". The first is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Neil,
> I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor,
> but confirm that it gets it wrong as you said. I'll give you the honor of
> submitting a bug report.
Will do!
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #7 from Neil Carlson ---
> Was it as a result of the nagfor error, perhaps? If so, have you already sent
> them a bug report?
I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor, but
confirm that it gets it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #5)
> >> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
> >
> > I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be
> > okay
> > (i.e.,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #5 from Neil Carlson ---
>> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
>
> I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be okay
> (i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't. Sorry for the confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
Hi Paul,
> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be okay
(i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't. Sorry for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Neil,
Thanks for posting this bug report.
> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
Why do you think that this should be rejected? As I understood it, this was
permitted by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87477
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
12 matches
Mail list logo
