[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2010-02-06 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
-- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41298

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2010-01-09 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 09:12 --- Subject: Bug 41298 Author: burnus Date: Sat Jan 9 09:11:53 2010 New Revision: 155755 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155755 Log: 2010-01-09 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2010-01-09 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 09:12 --- FIXED on the trunk (4.5). -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2010-01-06 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-06 21:49 --- Created an attachment (id=19491) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19491action=view) Draft patch Not regtested, need to re-check that the patch is correct, but seems to work otherwise. --

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2009-12-13 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-13 16:22 --- While looking at this one, I found two oddities: * There are two similar special-case handlers for ISOCBINDING_NULL_[FUN]PTR, one in trans-expr.c(gfc_conv_initializer), the other in trans-const.c

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2009-09-09 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 20:41 --- (In reply to comment #1) Thus the question is: Why is the last expr == NULL and not EXPR_VARIABLE of flavour FL_PARAMETER? gfc_match_rvalue replaces parameters with their values: case FL_PARAMETER: /* A

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2009-09-09 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-10 01:08 --- Features, features, features, always features... :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41298

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2009-09-09 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-10 02:43 --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) Thus the question is: Why is the last expr == NULL and not EXPR_VARIABLE of flavour FL_PARAMETER? gfc_match_rvalue replaces parameters with their values:

[Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored

2009-09-08 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 16:06 --- Regarding the initialization: Initializing proc pointers and pointers works. The first time one hits gfc_conv_structure, one has: expr-expr_type == EXPR_STRUCTURE for the type expr-ts-u.derived-name ==