--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-15 10:39 ---
No answer to comment #3 (likely fixed at revision 134936); closing as fixed.
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-06 16:19 ---
It would be (slightly) preferable if the test case didn't contain any
kind=4 or kind=8 specification. I wrote them, but I can't remember why
I put the kind=xxx in there.
This PR seems to have been fixed along
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2008-05-16 15:27 ---
Subject: Re: maxloc_bounds_[457].f90 fail with
-fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 21:48 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15
--- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 21:48 ---
Thomas, does the suggested change to the tests make sense, or would it be
better to skip these tests if they would be run using -fdefault-integer-8?
--
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
