--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 00:59
---
Subject: Bug 33162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 14 00:59:09 2007
New Revision: 130168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130168
Log:
2007-11-11 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 01:06
---
Subject: Bug 33162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 14 01:06:13 2007
New Revision: 130169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130169
Log:
2007-11-13 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 01:17
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-12 05:56 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33162
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00598.html
--
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-03 22:02
---
Created an attachment (id=14480)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14480action=view)
Revised preliminary patch that also fixes comment #19
This patch adds some similar code to
--- Comment #19 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2007-11-02 20:53 ---
Hi Jerry,
I tried your patch (part 3b), and noticed that it fails on the following code:
real function t(x)
real ::x
t = x
end function
program p
implicit none
intrinsic sin
procedure(sin):: t
print
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-02 05:40
---
hmm I posted that part3 patch too soon. I see I have several regressions. Oh
well, its a start. :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33162
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-02 05:25
---
Created an attachment (id=14465)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14465action=view)
Preliminary last patch for this PR
This patch enables the test case in Comment #3 to compile and execute
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-02 05:56
---
Created an attachment (id=14466)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14466action=view)
Revised preliminary last patch
This revised patch adds a check for NULL proc_if in decl.c
This appears to
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-31 14:27
---
Subject: Bug 33162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Oct 31 14:26:57 2007
New Revision: 129798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129798
Log:
2007-10-31 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-31 14:31
---
Subject: Bug 33162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Oct 31 14:30:48 2007
New Revision: 129799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129799
Log:
2007-10-31 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #13 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-31 04:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33162
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01855.html
--
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 21:07 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Interesting is whether the following should be accepted or not.
[...]
EXTERNAL foo ! implicit interface
call sub(foo) ! sub's argument has an explicit interface
gfortran, NAG f95 and
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 00:54
---
Subject: Bug 33162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 27 00:54:20 2007
New Revision: 129673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129673
Log:
2007-10-26 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 00:57
---
Subject: Bug 33162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 27 00:57:26 2007
New Revision: 129674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129674
Log:
2007-10-26 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-22 06:56 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created an attachment (id=14381)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14381action=view) [edit]
Patch to add checks for double specifics
This looks wrong:
+gfc_check_a_pd
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 01:42
---
The example in Comment #8 is rejected by gfortran because of this bug. It is
rejected by Lahey:
Diagnostic messages: program name(main)
2204-S: SOURCE.F90, line 18, column 6: In the reference to procedure
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-21 09:30 ---
Several intrinsic functions come as specific and as generic functions. For
instance
COS as generic function takes as argument REAL(k) and COMPLEX(k), k=4,8,10,16
and returns the same type and kind as it got
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-21 10:44 ---
This patch: Allows the test case in comment #1 to compile and run correctly
with
no regressions in the test suite.
It also wrongly allows the test case in the bugreport PR 33847 to compile. Thus
we should add a
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-21 16:39
---
Created an attachment (id=14381)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14381action=view)
Patch to add checks for double specifics
This patch adds checks for double specific intrinsics. I added
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-21 21:32
---
Created an attachment (id=14382)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14382action=view)
Preliminary argument checking with intrinsics
This draft patch catches the latest invalid case provided in
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-21 00:15
---
This patch:
Index: interface.c
===
--- interface.c (revision 129496)
+++ interface.c (working copy)
@@ -1679,8 +1679,9 @@ compare_actual_formal
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-21 03:34
---
Tobias, is this what you meant in your original comment that should work?
module m
implicit none
interface
double precision function my1(x)
double precision, intent(in) :: x
end function my1
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-05 14:14 ---
Besides the argument kind checking of specific intrinsic procedures and
besides using specific intrinsic as name in the PROCEDURE statement, the
following fails as well. The error message is:
Error: Type/rank
24 matches
Mail list logo
