--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-04 16:49
---
Also happens on i686-linux. It's a 4.1/4.2 regression, which means we could
theoretically try to fix it. I'm closing this as WONTFIX nonetheless due to the
small impact of the bug (it's triggered by invalid code)
--- Comment #3 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-05-04 17:46 ---
While being a reasonably uncommon case, AFAICT it's a legal construct. That
is: not invalid code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31720
--- Comment #4 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-05-04 17:50 ---
(I guess I should qualify that. I don't have a copy of the standard laying
around to check, but it's legal according to the Ellis, Philips and Lahey
book.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31720
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-04 18:14 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(I guess I should qualify that. I don't have a copy of the standard laying
around to check, but it's legal according to the Ellis, Philips and Lahey
book.)
It is not valid code. The
--- Comment #6 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-05-04 18:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=13507)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13507action=view)
Revised acmod.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31720
--- Comment #7 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-05-04 18:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=13508)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13508action=view)
Revised nnh.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31720
--- Comment #8 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-05-04 18:37 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
(I guess I should qualify that. I don't have a copy of the standard laying
around to check, but it's legal according to the Ellis, Philips and Lahey
book.)
