--- Comment #38 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-04-01 17:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31052
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00014.html
--
--- Comment #39 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 18:32
---
Subject: Bug 31052
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 1 18:32:20 2007
New Revision: 123403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123403
Log:
2007-04-01 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #40 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 18:33
---
Subject: Bug 31052
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 1 18:33:13 2007
New Revision: 123404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123404
Log:
2007-04-01 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #37 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-28 22:22 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
Closing, will not backport to 4.2 unless someone feels strongly about it.
Jerry,
I hate to bother you, but it is not really fixed.
Add a comment line at the end of the namelist file
--- Comment #35 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 01:19
---
Subject: Bug 31052
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Mar 28 01:19:39 2007
New Revision: 123284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123284
Log:
2007-03-27 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #36 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 01:59
---
Closing, will not backport to 4.2 unless someone feels strongly about it.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-03-26 13:15 ---
Unfortunately I don't
have the SPEC test case to see to try to weed this out.
have a look a comment #24 the sources are actually available
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31052
--- Comment #33 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 16:54 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
Here is a new patch. I need someone to test on SPEC. It is very simple.
Index: transfer.c
===
*** transfer.c
--- Comment #34 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 21:55
---
Regarding comment 24 and 32.
I have that downloaded and tried to compile and there are duplications of
subroutines and multiple main programs. As I get time, I intend to get it
sorted out and add it to my
--- Comment #31 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 07:00
---
Here is a new patch. I need someone to test on SPEC. It is very simple.
Index: transfer.c
===
*** transfer.c (revision 123205)
--- transfer.c
--- Comment #30 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2007-03-24 19:02 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs
past EOF
I will keep at it on this. It seems we have a conflict between the SPEC
test that was failing and the namelist testcases. Unfortunately I don't
--- Comment #27 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-23 22:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=13273)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13273action=view)
Another variant of the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31052
--- Comment #28 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-23 22:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=13274)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13274action=view)
Namelist for the modified demo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31052
--- Comment #29 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-23 22:43 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
Jerry,
with the latest variant of your patch I get a failing namelist read
with the new reduced testcase gfcbug61a.f90 (uses gfcbug61a.nml).
If I remove one of the entries in the namelist file,
--- Comment #24 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-03-22 13:54 ---
there is only one file on the web that matches:
'C READ IN HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL MISALIGNMENT AND TILT'
http://mad.home.cern.ch/frs/Source/DA/six.f
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31052
--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-22 20:38
---
Created an attachment (id=13255)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13255action=view)
Untested patch to fix regression on sixtrack
This patch reverts portions of the original patch and keeps a
--- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 00:13
---
Subject: Bug 31052
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Mar 23 00:13:19 2007
New Revision: 123139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123139
Log:
2007-03-22 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-20 08:51 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Error 5001 would be ERROR_OPTION_CONFLICT. There are 18 different errors
associated with that code. To find out which one, you must remove the iostat
from the offending line so that gfortran
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-19 22:59 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Jerry,
I tried FX's snapshot from today (20070319) and the example
above works. A somewhat more twisted example which I have
not yet been able to reduce leads to an IOSTAT value of 5001
(BTW:
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-20 01:47 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:59:25PM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-20 02:20
---
Error 5001 would be ERROR_OPTION_CONFLICT. There are 18 different errors
associated with that code. To find out which one, you must remove the iostat
from the offending line so that gfortran will print the
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-18 18:14
---
Subject: Bug 31052
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:13:50 2007
New Revision: 123038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123038
Log:
2007-03-18 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-18 18:17
---
Subject: Bug 31052
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:17:24 2007
New Revision: 123039
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123039
Log:
2007-03-18 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #17 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-03-14 03:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31052
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00892.html
--
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-08 08:24 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Jerry, I don't have the ressources for a (re)build,
so I will wait until it shows up in FX's daily binaries.
Anyway, many thanks, and feel free to adjust the
PR summary appropriately. From your
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 07:37
---
hmm, I goofed, the patch in #14 does not fix this, scratch that. However, the
problem is that test_endfile in st_rewind is incorrectly setting the AT_ENDFILE
condition. I have a patch in progress.
--
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 05:51
---
Here is a patch. Herald, do you want to see if this fixes it for you.
I tested here, but it does not hurt to test some more.
Index: file_pos.c
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06 08:20 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The value 5008 is listed in libgfortran.h as ERROR_ENDFILE. The
-1 corresponds to ERROR_END. So, the return value of 5008 is
telling you that you are trying to (initiate a?) read beyond
the end
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06 08:42 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
All other compilers I have checked (xlf, ifort 7.x-9.x, g95)
stay at the end of file.
I stand corrected with regard to xlf. It returns a
documented recoverable error condition.
I have to find
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06 10:22 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I have to find out why the code in question that lead to
the problem report does not properly recover with gfortran.
It might be an interference with BACKSPACE, as the
full code that lead me to the
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-06 15:53 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:20:23AM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06 21:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=13153)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13153action=view)
Revised demo
Revised demo. New namelist for this demo follows.
At some place, the input read gets garbled with gfortran,
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06 21:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=13154)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13154action=view)
Namelist
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31052
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06 22:00 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
In the new example, when I comment out the BACKSPACE
in position_nml for ios0 (EOF condition), the garbled
output goes away. But in the large program (where this
was extracted) this does not help;
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 03:37
---
Replying to comment #6. I am forming an opinion. Section 9.7 of the F2003
standard states:
Backspacing over records written using list-directed or namelist formatting
is prohibited.
This implies to me that
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 03:38
---
I will take this one, but I am not confirming its a bug yet.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 04:45
---
The garbled text is because gfortran does not default initialize variable as
some compilers do. The 'line' variable is not getting read because gfortran is
getting an error on the read, so the it is not set to
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 06:40
---
AFAICT A backspace is not allowed for namelist files according to 9.7.1
I interpret this to mean this is invalid code.
Further, Note 9.54 states that if the preceding record read is the EOF record,
the
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-05 22:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=13148)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13148action=view)
Demo code
The namelist file is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13088
--
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 23:27 ---
The value 5008 is listed in libgfortran.h as ERROR_ENDFILE. The
-1 corresponds to ERROR_END. So, the return value of 5008 is
telling you that you are trying to (initiate a?) read beyond
the end of the file, which
40 matches
Mail list logo
