http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-03
11:30:23 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Dec 3 11:30:18 2011
New Revision: 181967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181967
Log:
2011-12-03 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-03
12:57:41 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Dec 3 12:57:38 2011
New Revision: 181969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181969
Log:
2011-12-03 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.2 |4.6.3
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-13
07:18:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Well, comment #5 is 'equivalent' to comment #3: Both have a non-pointer intent
(which is what you suggested in your initial comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-13 12:27:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I think the comments of the following program are correct; however, the
compilers I tested either rejected all - or they compiled it without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-13 12:31:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
call move_alloc (x%a, a) ! Invalid (2)
This one corresponds to the original test case.
Sorry, of course I meant this one:
call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect error for |[4.6/4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12 20:44:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
That won't work for:
type(t), intent(in) :: dt
call move_alloc(dt%allocatable, ...)
That's invalid as dt%allocatable is intent(in);
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12 21:17:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
This was rejected before, and still is with my patch.
But should it be rejected? move_alloc does not modify the association status
of
dt -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12
21:42:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
But should it be rejected? move_alloc does not modify the association
status of dt - just of dt%VALUE. Thus, I believe this test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12
21:53:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I can't give any hard evidence right now, but naively I would say it should
indeed be rejected. Shouldn't the allocation status of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12 22:07:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The following (equivalent) variant is at least rejected by gfortran 4.5 on
upwards:
TYPE MY_TYPE
INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: VALUE
15 matches
Mail list logo
