https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun May 13 17:18:05 2018
New Revision: 260213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260213&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/63529
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #11 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> > Nasty answer: what did you do to fix it?
> >
> > I RTFM and saw at
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Cray-pointers.html#Cray-pointers
>
> That's a tad bit harsh. I don't recall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 04:38:53PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
>
> --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Not sure what correct etiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Not sure what correct etiquette is for checking on bug status, but this has
> been sitting for close to two months now, so I thought I would poke my head
> in again.
Nasty answer: what did you do to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #8 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Not sure what correct etiquette is for checking on bug status, but this has
been sitting for close to two months now, so I thought I would poke my head in
again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #7 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> AFAICT the ICE with "REAL :: ptee1(10)" has been fixed for gfortran 4.9.1
> and above (also for 4.8.4).
I can't easily test with either of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #5 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
> standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
> standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
> declaration se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #4 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
> standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
> standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
> declaration s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:49:52AM +, russelldub at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
>
> --- Comment #2 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> (In reply to kargl fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #2 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to russelldub from comment #0)
> > Consider the following "cray_ptr_issue1.f90":
> >
> > MODULE PTR_MOD
> > IMPLICIT NONE
> > REAL :: ptee1(*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
15 matches
Mail list logo
