[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2010-11-01 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41219 Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2010-10-13 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41219 --- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14 01:29:41 UTC --- *** Bug 45998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2010-10-13 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41219 Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2010-05-07 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #23 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 16:00 --- My build log seems to be clean (i686-pc-linux-gnu). Is this PR still needed? -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2010-05-07 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #24 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 17:18 --- This is for mingw, not linux. I can test again when our buildbot farm is back up. Should be in the next few days. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41219

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2010-05-07 Thread sezeroz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #25 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 17:44 --- (In reply to comment #23) My build log seems to be clean (i686-pc-linux-gnu). Is this PR still needed? The commit from comment #14 (as inlined in comment #9) introduces a new warning of passing argument 2 of

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-12-29 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-29 15:48 --- *** Bug 29313 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41219

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-10-30 Thread jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 22:37 --- Subject: Bug 41219 Author: jb Date: Fri Oct 30 22:37:47 2009 New Revision: 153769 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153769 Log: PR libfortran/41219 Fix build warnings Modified:

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-21 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 16:30 --- Current list: ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/list_read.c:1847:10: warning: variable 'elem' might be clobbered by 'longjmp' or 'vfork' ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/list_read.c:1849:10:

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-21 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 16:33 --- (In reply to comment #14) Subject: Bug 41219 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Sep 12 15:08:27 2009 New Revision: 151653 As of r151914, this warning still exists when the host=linux64 and the target=win64. --

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-21 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-21 17:01 --- ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24: warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized in this function I think this warning is bogus: index_type size, str; for (i = 0; i

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-21 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 17:36 --- (In reply to comment #17) ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24: warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized in this function I think this warning is bogus: index_type

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-21 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-21 18:01 --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #17) ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24: warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized in this function I think this

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-21 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #20 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 18:12 --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #17) ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24: warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized in this

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-12 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-12 14:48 --- I will do the write.c one. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-11 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-12 05:36 --- Current warning list as of revision 151630: ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/write.c:328:8: warning: passing argument 2 of 'write_default_char4' from incompatible pointer type

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-07 Thread sezeroz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-09-07 11:27 --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #2) Janne, I think the warning about unix.c:750:15: warning: #65533;statbuf.st_mode#65533; may be used uninitialized is spurious, but can you have a look? Yes,

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-07 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 00:59 --- Subject: Bug 41219 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Sep 8 00:59:05 2009 New Revision: 151495 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151495 Log: 2009-09-07 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-06 Thread jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 13:55 --- (In reply to comment #2) Janne, I think the warning about unix.c:750:15: warning: ‘statbuf.st_mode’ may be used uninitialized is spurious, but can you have a look? Yes, it's spurious, and I submitted a patch

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 18:17 --- Let me fix this. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 21:21 --- The following patch gets rid of the two warnings in list_read.c. The two enumerators have equivalent value. Regression tests fine. @@ -2377,7 +2377,7 @@ /* GFC_TYPE_UNKNOWN through for nulls and is

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 02:57 --- Regarding comment #6. In write_a_char4, one has: const char crlf[] = \r\n; write_default_char4 (dtp, crlf, 2, 0); but the second argument should be gfc_char4_t* Right. So what is \r\n

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-04 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 09:25 --- Subject: Bug 41219 Author: burnus Date: Fri Sep 4 09:25:00 2009 New Revision: 151417 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151417 Log: 2009-09-04 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de PR

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-03 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 06:55 --- Thomas, I think do to your changes one now gets a warning (unused argument) for libgfortran/intrinsics/unpack_generic.c. The last argument of unpack_internal (index_type fsize) is no longer used; as the function is

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-03 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 07:12 --- Nightstrike: I do not understand libgfortran/intrinsics/getlog.c:85:3: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘getlogin’ There is a #if defined __MINGW32__

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-03 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 07:36 --- Subject: Bug 41219 Author: burnus Date: Thu Sep 3 07:36:36 2009 New Revision: 151371 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151371 Log: 2009-09-03 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de PR

[Bug fortran/41219] libgfortran build warnings

2009-09-03 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 08:36 --- The getlogin function is getting prototyped in headers only, if the _POSIX define was set. So a bug-fix here would be for w64 to define before including headers the _POSIX macro. Cheers, Kai --