https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Dec 12 19:00:32 2015
New Revision: 231585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231585=gcc=rev
Log:
2014-12-12 Tobias Burnus
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/45859
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-25
14:28:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
is supposed to be valid according the following IR. A modified program which
uses
call sub (x(10:))
is unambiguously valid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18
20:16:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
See F08/0040 at http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/11/11-006A.txt
STATUS: Passed by J3 letter ballot
My comment is odd. First, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18
20:21:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Meeting 193 ( http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/193/ ):
- 10-229 has an edit which allows the program (cf. quote in comment 0)
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-27
16:03:41 UTC ---
See F08/0040 at http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/11/11-006A.txt
STATUS: Passed by J3 letter ballot