[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 07:13 --- Subject: Bug 29936 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Nov 25 07:12:56 2006 New Revision: 119184 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119184 Log: 2006-11-24 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR libgfortran/29936 * io/io.h (unit_flags): Add new flag has_recl. * io.open.c (new_unit): Set flag if RECL= was specified. * io/transfer.c (us_write): If flag set, leave recl as initialized by new_unit. Modified: branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libgfortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libgfortran/io/io.h branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libgfortran/io/open.c branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libgfortran/io/transfer.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 07:14 --- Subject: Bug 29936 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Nov 25 07:14:33 2006 New Revision: 119185 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119185 Log: 2006-11-24 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR libgfortran/29936 * gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90: New test. Added: branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 07:23 --- Subject: Bug 29936 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Nov 25 07:22:49 2006 New Revision: 119186 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119186 Log: 2006-11-24 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR libgfortran/29936 * io/io.h (unit_flags): Add new flag has_recl. * io.open.c (new_unit): Set flag if RECL= was specified. * io/transfer.c (us_write): If flag set, leave recl as initialized by new_unit. Modified: branches/gcc-4_1-branch/libgfortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_1-branch/libgfortran/io/io.h branches/gcc-4_1-branch/libgfortran/io/open.c branches/gcc-4_1-branch/libgfortran/io/transfer.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 07:24 --- Subject: Bug 29936 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Nov 25 07:24:34 2006 New Revision: 119187 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119187 Log: 2006-11-24 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR libgfortran/29936 * gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90: New test. Added: branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/write_check3.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 07:28 --- Fixed on 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 07:29 --- Fixed -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 20:48 --- (In reply to comment #0) The following example should give an EOR error. This is one of the things that the programmer has to get right, a processor may do anything (including silently ignoring the error, as gfortran and ifort 8 did, and raising an error). Oh well, in order not to cause a regression, I will have to adjust my large record patch accordingly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-23 02:10 --- Actually the problem was that gfortran was failing to set the record length to the value requested in the OPEN statement. Now as far as emitting an error or warning I have a concern. If the user specifies a RECL= and the size of the output list in a WRITE exceeds that value, we should not lengthen the record. That implies truncating the output list. Based on that I think we should issue a runtime error. If the output list is shorter then RECL= then the balance of the record is undefined and we can just continue on. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 06:12 --- Patch in progress -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-11-22 06:12:46 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 07:34 --- Fixed on trunk. Will go to 4.2 in a day or so. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29936
