http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #3 from Sebastien Bardeau <bardeau at iram dot fr> 2012-01-25 12:39:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I wonder why it does not work for you with GCC 4.7 2011-11-19. > > I do not recall any issue, but it might have been some intermediate glitch. > Does a newer 4.7 work? And which platform are you on? It could also be some > target-dependent bug. Same problem with the nightly version under x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu: pctcp27 Scripts/Fortran> gfortran -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gfortran COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/bardeau/Softs/gcc-4.7.0-20120125/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-source/gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap --disable-libmudflap --enable-libgomp --enable-lto --enable-gold --with-plugin-ld=/usr/bin/gold --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk Thread model: posix gcc version 4.7.0 20120125 (experimental) [trunk revision 183507] (GCC) And also with an old gfortran I have on my system: pctcp27 Scripts/Fortran> gfortran44 -v Using built-in specs. Target: x86_64-redhat-linux6E Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla --enable-bootstrap --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-libgcj --with-mpfr=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.4.0-20090514/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux6E/mpfr-install/ --with-ppl=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.4.0-20090514/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux6E/ppl-install --with-cloog=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.4.0-20090514/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux6E/cloog-install --with-tune=generic --with-arch_32=i586 --build=x86_64-redhat-linux6E Thread model: posix gcc version 4.4.0 20090514 (Red Hat 4.4.0-6) (GCC) (In reply to comment #2) > It looks like the test should be > > and for the variant above I confirm that the error is Well, ok, the 2 tests are just different and should raise different errors.
