On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 01:29, Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 18:35, Mikael Morin <mikael.mo...@sfr.fr> wrote: >> On Saturday 29 October 2011 14:43:22 Mikael Morin wrote: >>> > FWIW, it seems ifort 12.0 uses "UNDEFINED" in this case; I suppose a >>> > case could be made for using the same. Comments? >>> >>> Let's go for UNDEFINED then. >> On second thought, UNSPECIFIED is better as UNDEFINED is for another case. > > Hmm, indeed, on second thought I agree as well.
I just committed all the 3 parts of this patch series. Parts 1 and 2 verbatim, and 3 also verbatim except with the following for inquire_5.f90: Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_5.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_5.f90 (revision 180700) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_5.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,11 +1,10 @@ ! { dg-do run { target fd_truncate } } -! { dg-options "-std=legacy" } ! ! pr19314 inquire(..position=..) segfaults ! test by thomas.koe...@online.de ! bdavis9...@comcast.net implicit none - character*20 chr + character(len=20) chr open(7,STATUS='SCRATCH') inquire(7,position=chr) if (chr.NE.'ASIS') CALL ABORT @@ -31,7 +30,7 @@ write(7,*)'this is another record' backspace(7) inquire(7,position=chr) - if (chr.NE.'ASIS') CALL ABORT + if (chr .NE. 'UNSPECIFIED') CALL ABORT rewind(7) inquire(7,position=chr) if (chr.NE.'REWIND') CALL ABORT (That is, test the returned value explicitly rather than test for standards conformance as in the original patch) -- Janne Blomqvist