--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 19:08 ---
Runtime checking is PR 37746, BTW, I'm working on it and have a pending patch.
Would this fix this bug or should we wait for the whole-file checking?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24886
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 08:40 ---
*** Bug 35943 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 08:40 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37746 ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 08:41 ---
Here's a patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00273.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37746
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 19:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=17090)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17090action=view)
Another test case
This seems to be yet another test triggering this ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
for procptr and C binding
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 19:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=17091)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17091action=view)
Test case
This is the program ICE'ing
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38831
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38849
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 09:47 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141516 ?
Seems to be my fault, quite plausibly :D I will work on this.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 09:44 ---
I will work on this.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 13:35 ---
Subject: Bug 38887
Author: domob
Date: Wed Jan 21 13:34:55 2009
New Revision: 143541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143541
Log:
2009-01-21 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
* trans-stmt.c
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 13:37 ---
Fixed on trunk by converting the abort() call in internal_unpack to a return
(this is also what the real unpack library call does).
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-22 17:27 ---
I always liked the idea of associate... Maybe I'll volunteer to work on it for
gfortran, but don't take my word on it ;) And of course, things like CLASS get
higher priority.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 07:47 ---
*** Bug 38831 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38152
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 07:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Works for me at r143643.
Duplicate of PR 38152?
Works for me now, too. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll close it as
duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38152
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 08:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
in gfc_conv_elemental_dependencies which then in
gfc_trans_allocate_array_storage gets accessed as:
tmp = TREE_TYPE (initial); /* Pointer to descriptor
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 38883
Author: domob
Date: Tue Jan 27 18:07:54 2009
New Revision: 143707
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143707
Log:
2009-01-27 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/38883
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 18:10 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39171
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-14 09:50 ---
Confirmed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-02 13:13 ---
*** Bug 39344 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39342
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-02 13:13 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39342 ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 17:47 ---
Subject: Bug 37423
Author: domob
Date: Sun Mar 29 17:47:00 2009
New Revision: 145248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145248
Log:
2009-03-29 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/37423
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 19:50 ---
Subject: Bug 38654
Author: domob
Date: Sun Mar 29 19:50:15 2009
New Revision: 145259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145259
Log:
2009-03-29 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/38654
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 14:46 ---
Fixed on trunk (4.5)
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
: Fortran 2008: Implement BLOCK construct
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 18:16 ---
See also this thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-04/msg00065.html
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 13:58 ---
Working on updating and working out FX's patch.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:14 ---
Extended patch based on the one from comment #2 posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-04/msg00148.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22552
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:44 ---
Subject: Bug 37746
Author: domob
Date: Sat Apr 11 16:44:37 2009
New Revision: 145958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145958
Log:
2009-04-11 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/37746
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:46 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 15:01 ---
Yes, that sounds like a problem caused by my patch; it did change the structure
of storing the type-bounds, so maybe simply changing the if to the one shown by
Tobias was wrong.
I will look into this!
--
domob
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 13:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=17865)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17865action=view)
Latest patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22552
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 13:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=17866)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17866action=view)
ChangeLog for patch posted
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22552
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 20:03 ---
Subject: Bug 40045
Author: domob
Date: Thu May 14 20:02:46 2009
New Revision: 147540
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=147540
Log:
2009-05-14 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/40045
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 20:05 ---
Fixed (not addressing the related part in comment #2, but Janus promised to
work on it).
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41978
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 19:45 ---
See here for some discussion about this issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/8cef6676b6fa3750#
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41177
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 21:08 ---
I've not checked the standard about this, but seems fine to me. I also give
you an ok for that patch (maybe with a test-case) if you want to submit/commit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41978
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:58 ---
Thanks for reminding me, Tobias! Actually, yes, I still plan to fix this. I
probably don't have time and motivation right now to work on a general plan
to improve documentation issues like that, but at least
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:39 ---
Subject: Bug 41177
Author: domob
Date: Tue Dec 8 11:39:20 2009
New Revision: 155086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155086
Log:
2008-12-08 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/41177
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|domob at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:45 ---
This fixes most of the issues mentioned, except that it does not yet allow
calling an ELEMENTAL type-bound procedure on a non-scalar base object; this
leads to an ICE and thus I disabled it for now. I'll keep
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19258)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19258action=view)
Test case for ELEMENTAL type-bound procedure call
This is a test-case for the still missing part as per the last
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 14:58 ---
Well, on 10th of August I posted this to the mailing list to get comments about
what to do with this PR and some other. I did so far never get any replies :)
So actually I'd like to work things out here and either
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:31 ---
Subject: Bug 22552
Author: domob
Date: Sun Dec 27 09:30:57 2009
New Revision: 155479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155479
Log:
2009-12-27 Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoud...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:33 ---
Implemented on trunk with (basically) the patch attached.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:34 ---
Will work on this, as Tobias suggested the warning could depend on -Wsurprising
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-23 14:28 ---
Subject: Bug 37588
Author: domob
Date: Tue Sep 23 14:26:47 2008
New Revision: 140594
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140594
Log:
2008-09-23 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-23 14:29 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-24 14:39 ---
Thanks for the report Salvatore, I'll take this one on. It seems the new F2003
features are starting to getting used, from the bug-noise :D
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-25 10:28 ---
I guess this is illegal, too:
PROGRAM main
IMPLICIT NONE
CALL test (5, (/ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 /) )
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE test (n, arr)
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER :: n, arr(:)
INTEGER :: i = 5
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 18:49 ---
Confirmed. I'll work this out.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-02 07:22 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
subroutine x_init (this, text, value)
type(x_t) :: this
character(*) :: text
integer :: value
call base_t%init (text)
! or...
call base_init (base_t, text)
I
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-04 06:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=16461)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16461action=view)
Patch addressing most of the specific remarks
This patch (posted to the list some time ago) addresses most
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-04 10:16 ---
The problem is clearly that because of the error the type-bound procedure
remains in a somewhat dubious state (its pass_arg_num is invalid) and this
causes the ICE when resolving an actual call to it afterwards
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-04 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Hmm. I see that in my previous comment #3 I said the wrong thing: the attached
sample code should be correct, once the name in the PASS argument is fixed.
The reasoning behind #3
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-05 06:41 ---
Subject: Bug 37638
Author: domob
Date: Sun Oct 5 06:39:37 2008
New Revision: 140880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140880
Log:
2008-10-05 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-05 06:41 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-09 07:29 ---
Subject: Bug 35723
Author: domob
Date: Thu Oct 9 07:28:22 2008
New Revision: 141001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141001
Log:
2008-10-09 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-09 07:33 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-12 10:52 ---
Subject: Bug 37688
Author: domob
Date: Sun Oct 12 10:51:11 2008
New Revision: 141074
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141074
Log:
2008-10-12 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-12 10:53 ---
Fixed as suggested, thus basic arithmetic expressions are now also allowed even
containing untyped symbols as long as legacy (gnu) mode is enabled.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-14 16:20 ---
I will look at this and try to work it out, taking it for now.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-16 16:32 ---
Fixed the accepts-invalid mentioned in comment #1 (patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-10/msg00145.html) on trunk, but the main
problem here is still there, I'll start to work on it directly now
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-17 15:42 ---
Confirmed on trunk, with this test:
program pb
write(*,'(F3.0)') 1.0d0 - 1.110223024625157D-16
end
Changing decimals display to a value larger than 0 outputs 1 correctly.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-18 08:27 ---
I'm having some difficulties seeing what the problem really is... My
understanding of elemental procedures so far is that they should be more or
less equivalent to looping over the arguments and then performing them
--- Comment #13 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-19 14:46 ---
Paul, thanks for stepping into the party :)
My plan for working on this is to look at the first part of the problem for now
(the lost parentheses, this is a general ELEMENTAL problem, as my (invalid)
test from
--- Comment #14 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-19 16:16 ---
Actually, the parentheses aren't lost and *do* get honoured, but the temporary
is only inside the scalarization loop and thus not the full array temporary we
want; the problem is that the actual argument expressions
--- Comment #12 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-28 18:46 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Well, may patch is made against trunk, so I will leave it as is for now.
If Daniel commits his patch for PR35861, I can provide an updated patch.
I quickly looked at it, and it should
--- Comment #15 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-01 13:27 ---
Subject: Bug 35681
Author: domob
Date: Sat Nov 1 13:26:19 2008
New Revision: 141516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141516
Log:
2008-11-01 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
--- Comment #16 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-01 13:37 ---
This commit implements correct dependency and temporary handling if the
arguments to MVBITS are *not* expressions; thus it does not yet fix the
original test, although it fixes it if the parentheses are taken off
--- Comment #17 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-13 17:16 ---
Unassigning myself. Mikael will probably want to take the missing part on with
his pending patch :)
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-15 08:30 ---
I'll take this one on. Reading quickly through the thread gives me the
impression that it is not 100% agreed upon that this should in every case be an
error (although of course nearly so). But I guess we want
: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38152
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-16 09:27 ---
Daniel Kraft wrote:
I'm working out a test-case for PR 37779 and came across the following
program, which ICEs for today's trunk gfortran:
SUBROUTINE test ()
IMPLICIT NONE
procptr = test
If one
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 13:12 ---
Subject: Bug 37779
Author: domob
Date: Mon Nov 24 13:10:37 2008
New Revision: 142158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142158
Log:
2008-11-24 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38252
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 20:37 ---
Subject: Bug 37779
Author: domob
Date: Sun Nov 30 20:36:10 2008
New Revision: 142299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142299
Log:
2008-11-30 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 20:40 ---
This second commit detects cases like the one mentioned by Tobias in comment #2
on trunk/4.4 I'm going to work on a optional runtime-recursion checking
feature now as last part for this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 07:25 ---
Taking this on, as addition to PR 37779 about compile-time recursion checking.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 07:27 ---
Closing, for runtime-recursion checking I accepted PR 32626.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-07 16:17 ---
Unassigning myself, Tobias has a working patch posted for 4.5.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-07 17:12 ---
A proposed patch for 4.5 can be found at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00109.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37423
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-10 08:44 ---
I did post it to the mailing list some time ago and there was a little
discussion, IIRC, but no definite review or OK for it. But I can re-post it
(or we welcome your opinions), of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-17 10:18 ---
Added the runtime check for -fbounds-check. Thus fixed on trunk (4.4),
closing.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-17 10:14 ---
Thanks for the analysis, Tobias, I will then take this on as supplement to PR
38137.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-17 10:17 ---
Subject: Bug 38137
Author: domob
Date: Wed Dec 17 10:16:28 2008
New Revision: 142791
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142791
Log:
2008-12-17 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/38137
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-18 10:07 ---
Subject: Bug 31822
Author: domob
Date: Thu Dec 18 10:05:54 2008
New Revision: 142808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142808
Log:
2008-12-18 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/31822
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-18 10:12 ---
Fixed on trunk/4.4.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-21 18:46 ---
Subject: Bug 37605
Author: domob
Date: Sun Dec 21 18:45:17 2008
New Revision: 142866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142866
Log:
2008-12-21 Arjen Markus arjen.mar...@wldelft.nl
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-28 17:38 ---
I did once write a floating-point parser for FreeWRL. I can dig it out so we
can try to compare it to gfortran's current one, but I've no idea whether it is
fast or not (although I tried at that time to write
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-28 21:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=16998)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16998action=view)
Number parsing routines
Sorry for the spam, but this is the parser-code for numbers I promised; it's
just a part
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-10 10:52 ---
Subject: Bug 37425
Author: domob
Date: Mon Aug 10 10:51:46 2009
New Revision: 150622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150622
Log:
2009-08-10 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu
PR fortran/37425
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-10 10:57 ---
After Janus' recent check-in of CLASS parsing, this behaviour is fixed (though
CLASS is not really polymorphic).
I'm not sure if we should close this or keep open until CLASS is fully
implemented. Janus, feel free
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-10 11:08 ---
After the check-in now, type-bound operators are parsed/checked correctly, but
can not be called for now. I'll work on that as a follow-up patch.
This means that the test-case given in the report works
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
