On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 01:29, Janne Blomqvist
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 18:35, Mikael Morin <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
! [email protected]
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
