--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-21 11:26
---
OK, right, I don't have time to fix this. I've looked at the rounding code, and
carry propagation, and I think we'd need a new special case to handle that, but
couldn't find a way to do it that doesn't break
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 07:50
---
(In reply to comment #7)
If you stll think that this is a libgfortran bug (I don't)
you could add
setvbuf(stdout, NULL, _IOLBF, 0);
to unix.c:output_stream() so that stdout always is line-buffered even
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 07:54
---
Not specific to mingw32.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 07:56
---
Any news on enabling libgcj by default?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19970
--- Comment #17 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 08:01
---
Cross-building for mingw32 now works for me, and this bug has been inactive
long enough that we can close it. If someone has recent data on this, please
reopen!
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 08:05
---
I think this is fixed on 4.2:
$ gcc a.c
a.c:16:1: warning: setjmp redefined
In file included from a.c:7:
c:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.5/../../../../include/setjmp.h:41:1:
warning: this is the location
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 08:12
---
double __attribute__((cdecl)) sqrt (double);
double __attribute__((stdcall)) log (double);
double cos (double);
With this code, we still (gcc-4.2) get:
$ gcc -c -W -Wall -mrtd b.c
b.c:1: warning
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-25 08:58
---
Patch proposed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-09/msg00325.html
Janne, as I know you were interested in that feature, could you look at my
patch if you have some time?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #29 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-25 09:19
---
Subject: Bug 21203
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Sep 25 09:19:36 2006
New Revision: 117191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117191
Log:
PR fortran/21203
* error.c (show_loci
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 07:58
---
Changing this into a bug, since it was implemented in g77. It might be working
soon, since we will soon have ISO_C_BINDING val attribute, which does the same
thing, so adding the %val construct will probably
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 07:59
---
Closing, as the error messages have been modified to include source location.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 08:02
---
Confirmed, and marked as blocking the F2003 meta-PR.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 11:35
---
There's a TODO about this in front-end resolve.c. It's a good point to start...
static void
resolve_formal_arglist (gfc_symbol * proc)
{
gfc_formal_arglist *f;
gfc_symbol *sym;
int i;
/* TODO
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 14:05
---
After a year and not patch has been proposed for that enhancement, it looks
like it won't be implemented in gfortran.
Still, feel free to reopen this PR (or file a new one) if you have a patch
ready
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 22:34
---
(In reply to comment #7)
Changing main() in ctesti.c to start with:
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
setvbuf(stdout, NULL, _IOLBF, 0);
fixes the redirection problem.
After some more testing, this fix
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 09:18
---
Still present on mainline, probably not difficult to fix.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 13:21
---
Assigning this to myself, as I have a patch cooking. A testcase is (on
i686-linux):
$ cat cdabs.f
subroutine foo(f)
implicit none
real*8 f
complex*16 z
z = (1.,1.)
print
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 13:22
---
And also: that's a regression wrt g77.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 15:55
---
I have a patch for that, but it will have to wait until 4.3 is branched.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
OtherBugsDependingO 16580
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 20:41
---
Subject: Bug 18791
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Fri Sep 29 20:41:11 2006
New Revision: 117317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117317
Log:
PR fortran/18791
* gfortran.dg
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-01 07:43
---
Apart from the warnings in PR 26540, the situation is stable with the only
warning being:
../../../trunk/libgfortran/io/list_read.c: In function
list_formatted_read_scalar:
../../../trunk/libgfortran/io
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-01 15:02
---
I'm about to submit a patch that globally fixes this problem of intrinsics as
actual arguments, but this one is still eluding me. It's due to the implicit
none statement, and it works otherwise.
--
fxcoudert
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 07:10
---
Patch submitted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00022.html
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 07:11
---
Patch submitted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00022.html
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 07:34
---
I'll do it.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 07:39
---
Further reduced testcase (no need for a module):
implicit none
integer i
i = len(123)
call sub(len)
end
When the len in call sub(len) is resolved, it is never given its correct
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 08:11
---
Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/primary.c (revision 116798)
+++ gcc/fortran/primary.c (working copy)
@@ -1084,6
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 09:21
---
Subject: Bug 29210
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Oct 2 09:21:45 2006
New Revision: 117368
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117368
Log:
PR fortran/29210
* primary.c
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.2.0 4.1.2 |4.1.2
Known to work||4.2.0
: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unkown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unkown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unkown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29317
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 09:37
---
Subject: Bug 18791
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Oct 2 09:37:09 2006
New Revision: 117369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117369
Log:
PR fortran/18791
* gfortran.dg
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 09:38
---
Fixed on both 4.2 and 4.1
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #28 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 09:41
---
The only g77 intrinsic now missing to gfortran is FSEEK (and this is PR 22359).
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 11:09
---
If it's a regression wrt g77, then it's not an enhancement, it's a bug.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 11:23
---
Confirmed and marked as an enhancement. After all, it's working :)
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 11:35
---
That one is annoying. Reduced testcase is:
FUNCTION X()
ENTRY X1
IF (X .GT. 0) CALL FOO(X)
END
The error message is:
a.f: In function master.0.x:
a.f:3: error: invalid operand
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 11:37
---
Closing this. We'd need a more precise definition to be able to do anything
about that, although I don't see a reason why shared libraries wouldn't work on
cygwin.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 11:59
---
Confirmed, as Intel, Portland and other compilers accept this. Marked as an
enhancement, though, as g77 didn't support that anyway.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29322
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 20:13
---
I think the following can workaround the middle-end problem:
Index: trans-decl.c
===
--- trans-decl.c(revision 117368)
+++ trans-decl.c
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-03 10:32
---
This should be fixed. I forgot to commit some part of my patch. Sorry for the
inconvenience.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-03 13:10
---
Changing the summary of this bug to reflect the actual problem. Downgrading to
enhancement because it would be a weird GNU extension.
And unless someone show real interest in gfortran working on these platforms
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-03 13:44
---
Subject: Bug 27478
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Tue Oct 3 13:44:09 2006
New Revision: 117396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117396
Log:
PR middle-end/27478
* trans-decl.c
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-03 16:17
---
(In reply to comment #5)
The gfortran.dg/exponent_1.f90 and gfortran.dg/nearest_1.f90 are falling
on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. I updated to mpfr 2.2.0 and the tests are still
failing. Possibly, I need
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-04 06:59
---
I think this code is valid. Changing to ice-on-valid-code.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-05 08:05
---
(In reply to comment #6)
I am glad to see that you are pursuing that one. I nearly bust my head on it
my notes indicate that I had a fix that broke everything else; no details, so
not much help I'm afraid. I
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-07 13:34
---
Subject: Bug 16580
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:34:16 2006
New Revision: 117534
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117534
Log:
PR fortran/16580
PR fortran/29288
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-07 14:57
---
This was fixed by revision 117533:
2006-08-12 Francois-Xavier Coudert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* gfortran.dg/stat_1.f90: Make test pass when run under sudo.
* gfortran.dg/stat_2.f90: Likewise
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-08 13:21
---
Subject: Bug 28585
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sun Oct 8 13:21:42 2006
New Revision: 117555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117555
Log:
PR fortran/28585
* intrinsic.c
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-08 14:27
---
Subject: Bug 26540
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sun Oct 8 14:27:22 2006
New Revision: 117556
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117556
Log:
PR libfortran/26540
* intrinsics/signal.c
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29387
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29389
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29391
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29392
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29393
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29394
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29395
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
association
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29397
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-08 21:53
---
Another testcase for this bug:
TYPE T1
INTEGER, POINTER :: I=NULL()
END TYPE T1
IF(.NOT.ASSOCIATED(F1(10))) CALL ABORT()
CONTAINS
FUNCTION F1(I) RESULT(R)
TYPE(T1), DIMENSION(:), POINTER :: R
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-08 21:59
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23232 ***
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-08 21:59
---
*** Bug 29395 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-08 21:59
---
(In reply to comment #4)
*** Bug 29395 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
$ cat a10.f90
integer :: i(2,2)
data ((i(k,j), j = 1, k), k = 1, 2) / 3 * 0 /
end
$ gfortran a10.f90
In file a10
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:39
---
The same thing is true for all the array manipulation functions:
integer :: i(-1:1,-1:1) = 0
integer :: j(-1:2) = 0
! This is working correctly
write(*,*) lbound(i(-1:1,-1:1)), ubound(i(-1:1,-1:1
on parameter arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:36
---
The generated code for:
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
integer :: j(1)
j = lbound(any(i==1,2))
end
is weird:
MAIN__ ()
{
int4 j[1];
_gfortran_set_std (70, 127, 0);
{
int8 S.0;
S.0 = 1
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:44
---
And while I'm there, a few possibly related bugs:
$ cat pr29400-2.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
logical :: l(2)
l = any(i==1,2)
end
$ gfortran pr29400-2.f90 ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: rank
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 07:31
---
For the TRANSPOSE case, the generated code shows that the {u,l}bounds simply
aren't set right:
$ cat pr29391.f90
integer :: i(-1:1,-1:1)=0, j(2)
j = lbound(transpose(i))
end
$ cat pr29391.f90.003t.original
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 07:56
---
Paul,
I'm not sure, but I think PR29394 is related to that one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29216
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 08:13
---
I'm very interested in that. I think it would really benefit the compiler: the
Fortran front-end would gain much in stability (and ease of installation) and
the C front-end could also benefit from
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 22:04
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Are you sure that this renormalization of the bounds is required? After all:
(i) indices should always be realtive to lbound, whatever it is; and
(ii) why would anybody be interested
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:26
---
With the following patch:
Index: trans-array.c
===
--- trans-array.c (revision 117560)
+++ trans-array.c (working copy)
@@ -661,10
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:32
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Forget that patch, it's breaking lots of things :(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29391
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 13:17
---
I'll note that the Portland, Intel and g95 compilers do not see this issue
either. SunStudio does, at runtime.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-12 11:15
---
Created an attachment (id=12416)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12416action=view)
Patch for LBOUND/UBOUND
This patch fixes this bug completely. It builds fine, regtest and works fine
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-12 13:15
---
Created an attachment (id=12417)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12417action=view)
New patch
This updated patch is the result of re-reading the Standard about assumed-size
arrays
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-12 13:19
---
[Paul changed this bug into enhancement]
I'm changing this back (again) into a bug, not an enhancement, because it was
supported by g77, and we're trying to make a drop-in replacement for g77 in
most cases
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 07:22
---
Since it's only a build-time warning, I won't backport that patch to 4.1 and I
close the PR.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 07:38
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Can you upgrade and confirm that the code compiles?
No, Steve, it doesn't work for me either on i686-linux. I downloaded the code
from comment #2 (and to answer Paul: it doesn't contain
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 07:54
---
I managed to trim it down to:
implicit none
integer :: n, i
character(len=16),parameter :: s =
if (s(9:16) == 90123456) then
endif
if (i 0) then
write (i,*) n
1 - 100 of 3175 matches
Mail list logo
