https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jan 14 02:03:34 2019
New Revision: 267912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267912=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-13 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jan 14 01:12:27 2019
New Revision: 267911
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267911=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-13 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/88776
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jan 14 00:22:00 2019
New Revision: 267910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267910=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-13 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/88776
* io/open.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 12 23:06:47 2019
New Revision: 267898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267898=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/88776
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
So far this patch seems to test OK.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c b/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
index 4a7ccb3ddd5..d9af255a034 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Created attachment 45407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45407=edit
Self-contained testcase
I've been able to produce a self-contained testcase, which may aid
debugging.
While reducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf ---
I wrote "loss of data" because the second (valid) namelist could not be
properly read because of stat /= 0.
10 matches
Mail list logo