https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #25 from Walter Spector ---
Thank you Dominique!
Walter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Jun 12 18:25:25 2016
New Revision: 237340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-12 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/6075
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Jun 12 14:04:08 2016
New Revision: 237337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-12 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/6075
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sat Jun 11 22:36:50 2016
New Revision: 237332
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237332&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-12 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/60751
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #20 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sat Jun 11 19:21:22 2016
New Revision: 237330
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237330&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-11 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/60751
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sat Jun 11 19:19:43 2016
New Revision: 237329
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-11 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/6075
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> Note that the extra comma is used in the following tests:
>
> gfortran.dg/array_constructor_49.f90
> gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_6.F90
> gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the extra comma is used in the following tests:
gfortran.dg/array_constructor_49.f90
gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_6.F90
gfortran.dg/graphite/pr38083.f90
Any reason to keep it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valeryweber at hotmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #15 from Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #14 from Walter Spector ---
Hi Dominique,
I am sorry I didn't see or respond to your comment from last year. Thank you
for the ping.
Yes, it would be fine with me to recategorize the error as GFC_STD_LEGACY.
Walter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is there an agreement to downgrade the error from GFC_STD_GNU in
>
> gcc/fortran/io.c: && !gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Comma before i/o
> item list at %L",
>
> to GFC_STD_LEGACY? If yes, I'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is there an agreement to downgrade the error from GFC_STD_GNU in
gcc/fortran/io.c: && !gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Comma before i/o item
list at %L",
to GFC_STD_LEGACY? If yes, I'll submit a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 03:45:08PM +, w6ws at earthlink dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
>
> --- Comment #9 from Walter Spector ---
> Harald and Steve: I am quite aware o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #9 from Walter Spector ---
Harald and Steve: I am quite aware of the std= options, thanks.
My main point is that the default situation violates the Principle of Least
Astonishment. I don't have a problem with gfortran offering such a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #5)
> > It seems quite trivial to fix, but does it really worth the work?
>
> Well, we had an instance where this accidentally slipped into our code.
> Later on, our
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #6 from Walter Spector ---
Adding that both READ and WRITE have this issue. Interestingly, the iolength
version of INQUIRE does not:
inquire (iolength=i), i
1
Error: Expected expression in INQUIRE statement at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #5 from Walter Spector ---
> It seems quite trivial to fix, but does it really worth the work?
Well, we had an instance where this accidentally slipped into our code. Later
on, our nightly regression runs crashed with several non-gfo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #3 from Walter Spector ---
I didn't complain to Intel, but I can...
However the compilers that did catch it by default were NAG, lahey, and Absoft.
Walter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector ---
Simple test case:
program extracomma
implicit none
write (*,*), 1, 2, 3
end program
This compiles without error.
I notice that if I compile with -std=f95, it does diagnose this as a GNU
Extension. My
25 matches
Mail list logo
