--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 13:21 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I messed up the PR Number again. The commit for above was:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=154529
2009-11-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 03:26
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:41
---
Subject: Bug 42008
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 25 02:41:20 2009
New Revision: 154530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154530
Log:
2009-11-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:42
---
Subject: Bug 42008
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 25 02:42:22 2009
New Revision: 154531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154531
Log:
2009-11-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:43
---
I messed up the PR Number again. The commit for above was:
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 154529.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42008
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 12:38 ---
Does your patch still reject
pure function test()
integer, pointer :: p = null() ! INVALID per C1272
integer :: test
test = p
end function test
That is currently rejected as Error: Initialization of pointer
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:44
---
Without the patch it is rejected, with the patch it is not. I will look into
this further.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42008
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 19:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Without the patch it is rejected, with the patch it is not. I will look into
this further.
Would something like if (...-attr.saved) { gfc_error } work, combined with
the patch from
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 04:32
---
This seems to do the trick:
Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 154430)
+++ decl.c (working copy)
@@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ variable_decl
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 06:59 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
+ if (gfc_pure (NULL) gfc_state_stack-state != COMP_DERIVED)
Looks OK.
None of the examples have any save attributes set, implied or otherwise.
Probably not in decl.c - but at
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 03:06
---
This appears to fix this with no regressions. I will commit as obvious
tomorrow.
Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 154430)
+++ decl.c
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-12 11:21 ---
*** Bug 42016 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 12:54 ---
Misread the program one. I think it is also valid.
The constraint which is wrongly applied is:
C1268 A local variable declared in the specification-part or
internal-subprogram-part of a pure subprogram shall not
14 matches
Mail list logo
