[Bug fortran/32454] Bounds-check misses overflow of lhs array

2010-12-29 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32454

Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution||DUPLICATE

--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-29 
15:22:44 UTC ---
Same as the other.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 31059 ***


[Bug fortran/32454] Bounds-check misses overflow of lhs array

2010-07-01 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr


--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-07-01 15:01 ---
 I forgot to mention: I think this file is valid Fortran 2003 and only invalid
 Fortran 95. Maybe using:
   integer, dimension(4) :: y
 is a better test case.

It is caught at compile time:

  y = [y, (99,i=1,4)]
  1
Error: Different shape for array assignment at (1) on dimension 1 (4 and 8)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32454



[Bug fortran/32454] Bounds-check misses overflow of lhs array

2010-07-01 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-01 15:16 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
  Fortran 95. Maybe using:
integer, dimension(4) :: y
  is a better test case.
 
 It is caught at compile time:
   y = [y, (99,i=1,4)]
   1
 Error: Different shape for array assignment at (1) on dimension 1 (4 and 8)

Not if you write it as:
  n = 4
  y = [y, (99,i=1,n)]


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32454



[Bug fortran/32454] Bounds-check misses overflow of lhs array

2007-07-03 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Keywords||accepts-invalid
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-07-03 10:25:41
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32454



[Bug fortran/32454] Bounds-check misses overflow of lhs array

2007-06-21 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-21 12:33 ---
I forgot to mention: I think this file is valid Fortran 2003 and only invalid
Fortran 95. Maybe using:
  integer, dimension(4) :: y
is a better test case.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32454