--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 22:19
---
Full regression test passed on IBM Power 5. I will submit patch for approval
this evening. Thanks for bug report and testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44953
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 06:44
---
I am attempting a build on a PPC machine to see if I can fix this. I suspect I
am missing a few casts in the right places.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 07:31
---
I am able to reproduce this on the PPC machine I have access to. I think I see
the problem and will submit a patch in the next few days when I can squeeze in
some time.
Dominique, can you do me a favor and test
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 14:16
---
Subject: Bug 37077
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jul 16 14:16:04 2010
New Revision: 162260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162260
Log:
2010-07-16 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 14:21
---
Subject: Bug 37077
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jul 16 14:21:10 2010
New Revision: 162261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162261
Log:
2010-07-16 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 19:08
---
You do have to make sure you do a clean build. I noticed some dependency
issues while developing the patch. I am not sure it was io.h or
write_float.def. Regardless, check that first and I will touch base
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 02:08
---
Subject: Bug 37077
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Jul 13 02:07:48 2010
New Revision: 162122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162122
Log:
2010-07-12 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 01:56
---
Caused by my patch -r161020, will fix, subtle
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44934
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 03:32
---
Created an attachment (id=21206)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21206action=view)
Fix for this regression.
Tobias said:
Another question is why is the file marked as FORMATTED? READ (unit
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 03:41
---
Subject: Bug 44934
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jul 15 03:40:56 2010
New Revision: 162203
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162203
Log:
2010-07-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 03:42
---
Subject: Bug 44934
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jul 15 03:42:29 2010
New Revision: 162204
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162204
Log:
2010-07-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 03:44
---
Fixed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 20:06
---
The solution here should take into account all possible key words
combinations as well. integer, complex, character, etc. Matching REAL
should give match no accept for the few cases that are acceptable REAL
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 20:30
---
I will commit a similar patch, but I would like to add a check for the specific
line ends to make sure we don't get a NULL character inserted some day.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 20:43
---
Subject: Bug 44698
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jul 11 20:43:25 2010
New Revision: 162060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162060
Log:
2010-07-11 Kai Tietz kai.ti...@onevision.com
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 20:52
---
Closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 16:24
---
I won't be able to start a regression hunt until this week-end.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44857
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 06:00
---
Regardless, we should catch this and issue the error message about
-fmax-array-constructor. I don't see why we would want to do anything else.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44742
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 15:18
---
I think just ignore (..) . It seems to add no value at this time and assures
compatibility across platforms. Your patch is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43298
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 15:25
---
Yes, please reduce and lets see if we can discover something more specific
wrong here. Then also consider Mikael's idea.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44773
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 21:16
---
Thanks Tobias. Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 19:10
---
If you need someone to apply, test and commit , let me know. I will have time
and its pretty quick on my quad machine
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44662
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 01:17
---
Kai, your patch seems to be the simplest solution so if no objections I will
commit it in a few days. (I want to make sure we don't get whitespace junk in
it)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 01:36
---
Subject: Bug 43298
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 30 01:35:56 2010
New Revision: 161585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161585
Log:
2010-06-29 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 01:38
---
Subject: Bug 43298
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 30 01:38:42 2010
New Revision: 161586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161586
Log:
2010-06-29 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 04:26
---
I am back on this.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86-64-gnu-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44722
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 19:15
---
Tobias,
Your patch is approved. Also, I managed to get all your comments addressd for
the read_f patch including signs on Inf last night and will resubmit tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 05:32
---
One possible cause of this problem is that in configuration there could be
something going wrong with stat functions returning 32-bit vs 64-bit values. I
found one thread where C++ code was using 32-bit versions
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 19:46
---
See patch submitted for approval here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-06/msg00257.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43298
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 18:22
---
Please go ahead and commit, OK by me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 19:24
---
Rainer,
I will look at the array_constructor_23.f itself and see what the front-end is
doing with it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38946
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 20:20
---
Created an attachment (id=21009)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21009action=view)
Modified array_constructor_23.f to allow for some precision error
Rainer,
Try this version of the test case
--- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 20:41
---
I will commit the change
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38946
--- Comment #28 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 21:32
---
Subject: Bug 38946
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jun 25 21:32:37 2010
New Revision: 161416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161416
Log:
2010-06-25 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 04:35
---
Confirmed. I came up with the exact same patch and it does pass regression
testing, of course. Collided when I tried to post this. :)
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-23 02:37
---
Closing as fixed. If the issue of double endfile sequences pops up again we
can consider putting th errors behind -std=legacy.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44477
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-23 02:37
---
Closed
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 01:24
---
atan2_1.f90 has failed on other platforms before too. I think we just need:
! { dg-options -ffloat-store }
or maybe this
! { dg-options -O0 -ffloat-store }
in the test file. Can you try that and see
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-20 19:57
---
Michael, is this a legacy code issue? two ENDFILE in a row?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44477
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 00:58
---
Subject: Bug 44477
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jun 19 00:58:28 2010
New Revision: 161020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161020
Log:
2010-06-18 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 01:05
---
Subject: Bug 44477
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jun 19 01:05:05 2010
New Revision: 161021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161021
Log:
2010-06-18 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-12 22:33
---
How about this when attempting a READ or WRITE after an ENDFILE. (original
testcase)
$ gfc pr44477.f90
$ ./a.out
At line 5 of file pr44477.f90 (unit = 10, file = 'XXX')
Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 19:24
---
As I read this, the test case is invalid since it does not have a rewind or
backspace before the write?
If we want to change this to be an intended extension, I suppose we should
issue a warning or error
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 04:37
---
Interesting!
print *, kind=, kind(transfer(ii4,z'1000'))
On my system this gives kind = 8
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44489
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 05:21
---
The result of transfer is largest kind of decimal. Can be kind=8 or kind=16
depending on the system. Maybe we should add some documentation in the manual
on this. Thanks Steve for pointing this out
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 06:01
---
I have managed a patch that writes one very big record as in the test case. I
don't have sufficient memory to actually test a read.
It should be noted that the record length stored in gfc_unit which is created
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 06:10
---
There is one last improvement we can do here. Currently we are using
gfc_match_init_expr. This works fine, but the error messages are worded toward
initialization expressions and not stop codes. We could
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 19:31
---
Fixed and closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 03:52
---
Mine. The problem is the misplacement of the closing bracket. I will fix
shortly.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 04:17
---
Some additional tests/results:
Because we are using gfc_match_init_expr: leaving the ; out.
pr44371.f90:5.18:
if (c=='y') stop if (c=='Y') stop
1
Error: Function 'if' in initialization
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 04:43
---
Subject: Bug 44371
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 2 04:42:41 2010
New Revision: 160133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160133
Log:
2010-06-01 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 04:46
---
Subject: Bug 44371
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 2 04:46:38 2010
New Revision: 160134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160134
Log:
2010-06-01 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 05:02
---
Subject: Bug 44371
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 2 05:02:07 2010
New Revision: 160135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160135
Log:
2010-06-01 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 02:09
---
My take on this as I was reading through this thread before I got to comment
#13 is that the code has to be illegal. I vote for the error. I think it would
be bad practice too introduce this as an extension
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-30 05:38
---
I would like to work this one.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-23 14:46
---
yes, lets close
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-23 00:00
---
Subject: Bug 43851
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun May 23 00:00:17 2010
New Revision: 159747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159747
Log:
2010-05-22 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 20:24
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries
You could even install these locally perhaps to get what you need.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44232
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 13:33
---
Also have one tweak to do for blank STOP which I will fix shortly and add some
test cases.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43851
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 19:40
---
Subject: Bug 43851
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu May 20 19:40:30 2010
New Revision: 159638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159638
Log:
2010-05-20 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 04:44
---
Subject: Bug 43851
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu May 20 04:44:11 2010
New Revision: 159609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159609
Log:
2010-05-19 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 05:47
---
I have a patch testing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-17 20:51
---
We have complete control of whether to print the negative sign with
-fno-sign-zero. I am tempted to say this is a no-never-mind situation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44156
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-15 18:13
---
I suggest you give a chat to Richard Guenther who seems quite up on the
optimisation aspects of things. If we are creating a temporary in the front
end I think that would be the least optimal approach
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 16:58
---
I have a revised patch that handles default integer and negative error codes.
It is testing and I will submit when I get an opportunity.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43851
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 20:34
---
I believe this is fixed now.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-12 03:28
---
With all due respect for Cowan, I think that the program should be revised to
use standard code, or at least not use this particular feature. The last
revision of the program was in 2004. I agree we should
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 13:06
---
Working on it.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 01:59
---
This is not invalid and is a feature request. I do think that -w will silence
warnings. I do not see a need to treat this particular warning any differently
then all the rest of the legacy warnings we have
--- Comment #54 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-03 19:24
---
We should get the case in comment 40 added to the test suite if not already so
we do not regress it later.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40011
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 01:56
---
What I am thinking of is a warning if a quoted string is terminated by an
end-of-line and there is no closing quote.
I would like to put this behind -Wcharacter-truncation which will be picked up
with -Wall
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 04:11
---
What about this?
$ gfc -fbounds-check pr43899.f90
$ ./a.out
NMLIST NML_STRING='123456789' /
At line 9 of file pr43899.f90 (unit = 7, file = 'example.nml')
Fortran runtime error: Namelist object 'nml_string
--- Comment #28 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-01 14:37
---
Yes, please leave the limit in and allow users to change the max. This is a
safety net and also communicates to users they have to be careful what they are
doing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 19:05
---
Well in a sense it is unused. Regardless, adding a warning for the truncated
string, the real issue, is straightforward and I will do so.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 04:45
---
Created an attachment (id=20490)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20490action=view)
First attempt a a patch to allow reading inf and NaN with parens
This patch implements a filter to extract
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-24 12:04
---
Subject: Bug 43832
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Apr 24 12:04:09 2010
New Revision: 158684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158684
Log:
2010-04-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-24 12:07
---
Subject: Bug 43832
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Apr 24 12:07:07 2010
New Revision: 158685
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158685
Log:
2010-04-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-24 12:09
---
Fixed on trunk. Closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-24 12:17
---
Yes, OK to commit to trunk. Thanks!
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 18:19
---
I discussed with Kai on IRC today and have approved Kai to commit the patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43844
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-24 03:04
---
Fixed on trunk. Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-24 03:05
---
Actually close it.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-22 13:52
---
I will fix all this on trunk tonight and if we get good test results I will
port it back.
Thanks Kai. My eye was telling me something was not right there. Thanks Tobias
too.
I have a mingw build mostly working
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-22 00:29
---
OK , I will see what I ca ndo.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: mingw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43844
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-22 00:41
---
This does not look right to me:
static int
tempfile (st_parameter_open *opp)
{
const char *tempdir;
char *template;
int fd;
tempdir = getenv (GFORTRAN_TMPDIR);
if (tempdir == NULL)
tempdir
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-22 00:44
---
The if and do .. while block may execute mktemp more than once. ??
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43844
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 15:31
---
Re-confirmed.
We have no bounds checking code in fortran/io.c nor in the I/O library.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30802
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 14:57
---
No longer ICE, closing. The warning is adequate for this situation.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 23:03
---
Closing, no further information available
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 22:55
---
I tried this test case gfortran 4.6.0 (current trunk) and i do not get an ICE.
It just works. ???
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43712
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 00:17
---
An ice is an ice. However, this is particularly nasty to me since it is trying
to use reals for index variables.
Have you tried to get this down to a single loop and get the ice?
In -fdump-tree-original I see
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 00:35
---
I think this can be closed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 00:48
---
There are more resent versions of gfortran available at Mingw. Closing this
bug. If the problem persists after updating to more recent, please reopen.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 19:03
---
I don't see the failure on linux-x86-64. I am building on Cygwin to see whta
shows up there. I seem to recall a patch that changed a fatal error to a
non-fatal somewhere. I will have a look tonight
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-14 01:32
---
OK, I see it now. This is a little different from our previous encounters with
overly big constructors. In fact, the code we had in place is still there, so
we have whacked something. The test case does
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-14 05:08
---
Easier then I thought. Patch submitted for approval.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43747
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-14 05:17
---
Subject: Bug 43747
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Apr 14 05:16:59 2010
New Revision: 158290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158290
Log:
2010-04-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
101 - 200 of 3029 matches
Mail list logo
