https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #16 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com ---
*** Bug 49150 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #14 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-09-03 14:46:57 UTC
---
cricket
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #3 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-08-31 19:49:20 UTC ---
When I pass -E some strange behaviour occurs. First of all the code is
preprocessed with the c preprocessor and unless the -o flag is passed the
output is written to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #4 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-08-31 19:58:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 25155
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25155
test case files with Makefile
The Makefile.alt is configured to pass -E and -o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #6 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-08-31 22:01:06 UTC ---
I ma not saying gfortran is entirely broken, i'm merely claiming that there is
a bug in the dependency resolution feature. Please see GNU Make documentation
here for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-08-31 22:17:48 UTC ---
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:01:06PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote:
I hope you are less confused now.
I'm not confused. I do,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #8 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-08-31 22:27:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:01:06PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote:
I hope you are less confused now.
I'm not confused. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #9 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-08-31 22:34:46 UTC ---
Additionally, if my entire premise is wrong what do you anticipate the use of
the -M flag will be for? It's not hard to figure out that .o files depend on
the .f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-08-31 22:45:41 UTC ---
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:27:40PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-08-31 23:05:10 UTC ---
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34:46PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote:
Additionally, if my entire premise is wrong what do you anticipate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #12 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-09-01 01:14:40 UTC
---
Can you show me a specific passage in the GNU Make documentation
that states -M can be used to generate dependencies for
Fortran USE statements without the actual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #13 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-09-01 01:27:46 UTC
---
As for intrinsic F2003 modules, like ISO_C_BINDING, ISO_FORTRAN_ENV, etc. I
would expect the compiler to be able to handle this appropriately, i.e. not
require the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #1 from
17 matches
Mail list logo
