--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-18 14:21 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 20:52
---
Subject: Bug 23446
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-17 20:52:37
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog gfortran.h resolve.c expr.c decl.c
--- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-18 05:55
---
Subject: Bug 23446
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-18 05:55:23
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-26 19:24
---
Patch posted on fortran list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-09/msg00400.html
Paul T
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23446
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30
15:10 ---
Confirmed, as I think this is indeed legal code.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From enok at lysator dot liu dot se 2005-08-18
07:42 ---
After some research, I'm pretty sure the rejected code is legal.
§734: A specification-expr is a scalar-int-expr
Constraint: The scalar-int-expr shall be a restricted expression
Since a variable from the
--- Additional Comments From enok at lysator dot liu dot se 2005-08-17
17:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=9521)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9521action=view)
Testcase that is accepted by other compilers, but rejected by gfortran.
The output from gfortran follows:
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet|86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
