--- Comment #14 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 06:44
---
Closing, then.
Thomas
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 00:52 ---
WONTFIX works for me. As you originated the PR, I'll you close it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22495
--- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-29 23:30
---
Should we mark this as WONTFIX?
I'm in favor.
Thomas
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22495
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-06 15:01
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Thomas, can you point to the text in the standard that
> prohibits the equivalence of integer and logical. AFAICT,
> the 4th constraint in 5.5.1, contradicts your assertation.
I was wr
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-06 00:32 ---
> Do we care? Equivalencing integer and logical is prohibited
> (although we don't warn about this with --std=f95; maybe
> that is the error).
Thomas, can you point to the text in the standard that
prohibits the equ
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords||documentatio
--- Comment #9 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-06 00:22 ---
One can get quite interesting results out of g77, e.g.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/tests> cat ugly.f
LOGICAL L, M
equivalence (i,l)
DO i=0,5
M = i
PRINT "(5l2)", l, m, l.neqv..true., m.neqv
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-06 00:02 ---
The code is illegal, so every compiler has produced a
correct result.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 23:20 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think we should be consistent.
g77 also gives inconsistent results with the test program:
$ cat logic.f
program main
implicit none
logical :: lo1, lo2
integer :
--- Comment #6 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 23:06 ---
I did some further research, and while g77 didn't seem to have documented any
of the details of how LOGICALs are implemented, we have the following in
gfortran.texi:755:
@node Implicitly interconvert LOGICAL and IN
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 22:05 ---
Hmm... in this case, I think we should document that only 0 and 1
are valid for logical types, and if the user stuffs anything else
into one of our logicals, he is on his own.
After we have documented this, we can c
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 12:37 ---
I was curious, and tried below patch, changing .EQV. to .NEQV. in the testcase,
and still we don't get the "right" result, since our logical type is a real
logical, in that only the lowest bit is considered. I did some
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:36 ---
Actually, the .NEQV. case would be easily fixed, as there's a TRUTH_XOR_EXPR in
the middleend. On the other hand .EQV. would require adding some special case
logic to gfc_conv_expr_op (admittedly, not difficult logic).
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:30 ---
I'd say we don't care. Results with other compilers:
pgf90:
0 F F F
1 T F F
2 F F F
3 T F F
4 F F F
ifort:
0 F F F
1 T T
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-15
22:19 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
15 matches
Mail list logo
