http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-20
19:49:53 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Aug 20 19:49:46 2012
New Revision: 190542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190542
Log:
2012-08-20 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-20
05:47:55 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Aug 20 05:47:46 2012
New Revision: 190522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190522
Log:
2012-08-20 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-19
17:27:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> If the target has the SAVE attribute or is allocatable, we shouldn't warn.
Why shouldn't one warn for ALLOCATABLE? See first exam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-17
18:50:53 UTC ---
F2008, 16.5.2.5:
"The association status of a pointer becomes undefined when
...
"(5) completion of execution of an instance of a subprogram causes the
pointer's target to become unde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54301
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
