https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
--- Comment #8 from Jos de Kloe ---
Yes I would object to closing it.
This issue has a large impact on significant bodies of legacy code in our
institute.
I understand that you wish to enforce "standards", but removing a "Non-standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
--- Comment #6 from Jos de Kloe ---
Thanks for your test results and views on this matter.
> (1) PARAMETER has a very precise definition in Fortran and AFAICT this
> definition (named constants) does not match your use in the above quotation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
--- Comment #2 from Jos de Kloe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Why do you think this a bug in gfortran?
>
> The code compiles if you remove 'implicit none'. With it you have to define
> 'keylen' before using it, as in
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kloedej at knmi dot nl
Target Milestone: ---
For gfortran v.6.3.1 (on Fedora 25) I noticed that this example code:
subroutine test_arg_order(key,keylen)
implicit none
character
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kloedej at knmi dot nl
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37778=edit
minimal example that sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685
Jos de Kloe kloedej at knmi dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kloedej
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52594
--- Comment #2 from Jos de Kloe kloedej at knmi dot nl 2012-03-16 08:28:11
UTC ---
Thanks for your answer.
Using stop 0 or stop 1 would indeed be a way around, but the awkward thing is
that I do have some requirements to produce different values
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52594
--- Comment #4 from Jos de Kloe kloedej at knmi dot nl 2012-03-16 11:36:48
UTC ---
I am lost.
The way around that I mentioned was for gcc 4.7+ (so I cannot test this right
away, but will upgrade as soon as it is feasible for me).
Anyway
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52594
Bug #: 52594
Summary: no traceback expected for explicit fortran stop
command combined with -fbacktrace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe kloedej at knmi dot nl 2012-03-02 13:50:59
UTC ---
Thanks for your (really) fast response and fix.
I'll keep my eye open for other details that might improve gfortran.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
Bug #: 52325
Summary: unclear error: Unclassifiable statement
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
--- Comment #16 from Jos de Kloe kloedej at knmi dot nl 2011-02-14 14:12:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
FIXED on the 4.4 and 4.5 branches and on the 4.6 trunk.
Thanks Jos and Eric for the reports!
Hi Tobias,
thanks a lot for looking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
Summary: gfortran does not detect that the parameters for
passing a partial string to a subroutine are
incorrect.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
when printing integer?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http
--- Comment #2 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2008-12-12 14:47 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Sort of confirmed. You are aware that 'value-1' corresponds to
'-HUGE(value)-1', which is out of range for integer numbers of that kind?
Thanks for your reply.
Yes I am aware that defining
--- Comment #3 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2008-10-07 11:23 ---
Hi,
thanks for this discussion.
I do agree now that this code was invalid. I was thinking otherwise because no
compiletime or runtime error was issued by any of the compilers that I tried.
Checking this during compilation
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37746
--- Comment #6 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2008-01-16 14:11 ---
Dear people,
this comment is just to let you know that the problem is also solved on my side
now. My software compiles and runs again as expected.
thanks a lot for your effort and fast response.
Jos de Kloe
--
http
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34672
--- Comment #5 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2007-06-01 08:41 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
for integer overflows, see e.g.
https://www.cisl.ucar.edu/docs/ibm/ref/fpe.html
For x86 (32/64) platforms, this does not seem to be directly supported by
hardware; in this case one would need
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32153
--- Comment #8 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2007-05-29 07:29 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Hi,
this is just to report that my code works again as expected.
Thanks a lot for the fast fix of this bug!
Jos de Kloe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32083
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32083
--- Comment #10 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-11-27 08:21 ---
thanks for your effort to fix this bug!
I can confirm todays binary version, downloaded from
http://quatramaran.ens.fr/~coudert/gfortran/gfortran-linux.tar.gz
works fine for me.
best regards,
Jos de kloe
--
http
--- Comment #5 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-11-24 08:12 ---
Yes, I can confirm the gfortran version used was 4.3.0.
I didn't notice the version number changed when I downoaded the latest version.
Sorry for that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29951
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29951
--- Comment #1 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-11-23 09:27 ---
Hi,
a little correction on the just submitted report.
I seem to have mixed up the two cases. The string case fails so it clearly has
nothing to do with the rank of the first parameter to transfer().
Jos de Kloe
--- Comment #6 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-10-31 08:25 ---
A short additional remark on this item:
I just learned (thanks to Paul Poli) that the NAGware f95 compiler does behave
in the same way as gfortran, i.e. refusing to compile the constant -2147483648
in:
integer(KIND=4) :: i
--- Comment #5 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-10-25 07:16 ---
Thanks for your additional explanation, and the link to the original mail in
the mailing list.
A last remark on my side is then about the actual text of this error message.
People not familiar with the choice made
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29580
--- Comment #2 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-10-24 15:04 ---
In my simple view as a physicist the minus sign is an integral part of the
number and not an operation on it, but then I didn't have a formal computer
science education. As a gfortran programmer you have a choice here I
at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29561
--- Comment #1 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-10-23 12:03 ---
Sorry, variable names should differ of course, the sample code should be:
program testhexconstant
integer, parameter :: i4_ = Selected_Int_Kind( 9)
! works fine
integer(i4_), parameter :: a = z7F81
--- Comment #15 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-03-10 08:27 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
All I'm saying is that in this situation there seems to be no way to jump
to some label if something goes wrong (because there is no EOR parameter
for WRITE).
But I agree
of error-handler for internal read
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http
: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26277
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26257
dot org
ReportedBy: kloedej at knmi dot nl
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23654
38 matches
Mail list logo
