--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-16 18:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> By the way, the following also fails:
>
> module m
> procedure(), pointer :: procptr
> end module m
>
> use m
> external foo
> procptr => foo
> end
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-17 22:56 ---
> I don't know if it is solving the right problem, but at least the testcase in
> comment #13 compiles with it.
This indeed fixes it. Nice job. Obviously I was looking for the solution in the
wrong plac
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-27 22:09 ---
The test case can be further compressed to a 3-liner
procedure( up ) :: p
call p
end
and is fixed by the following simple patch
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-27 22:16 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Is this enough?
I guess so :)
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-27 22:50 ---
I also tried to compile the other procptr examples from the WikiBooks page,
which is linked in comment #0.
The only remaining problem I found was:
program bsp
implicit none
abstract interface
subroutine
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 11:54 ---
Since comment #13 is fixed, this should not be labeled a regression any more I
guess. Are there still problems with comment #12 (apart from PR35810), or can
we close this PR?
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 13:47 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> We could as well add James' gptr as a test case for a procedure pointer PR
> (there is probably one?).
Yeah, it's PR 36704.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36463
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 21:26 ---
Btw the examples in comment #0 slightly miss the point, since they lack the
POINTER attribute. Correct version:
function foo() result(bar)
procedure(),pointer :: bar
and
function foo()
procedure(),pointer
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 11:25 ---
Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 38289
Author: janus
Date: Sat Nov 29 13:36:35 2008
New Revision: 142276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142276
Log:
2008-11-29 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 38290
Author: janus
Date: Sat Nov 29 13:36:35 2008
New Revision: 142276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142276
Log:
2008-11-29 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 13:39 ---
Fixed with r142276. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 12:28 ---
I'm not sure the codes in comment #1 and #3 are actually valid, or if gfortran
is right to reject them. See also PR33162 comment #9, where Jerry concludes
that a similar thing should be rejected (this is proc_d
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 17:42 ---
Regarding the validity see also
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/5d2154a34072eb72/d9d7f1edde9aaa5b
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37254
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 17:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=16793)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16793&action=view)
patch v1
Attached is a minimal patch, which makes the simple case work where a separate
result variable
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 22:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=16795)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16795&action=view)
patch v2
This updated patch passes the testsuite without regressions and adds some
additional
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 11:59 ---
Subject: Bug 38290
Author: janus
Date: Tue Dec 2 11:58:16 2008
New Revision: 142351
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142351
Log:
2008-12-02 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 12:02 ---
Fixed with r142351. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 11:59 ---
Subject: Bug 36704
Author: janus
Date: Tue Dec 2 11:58:16 2008
New Revision: 142351
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142351
Log:
2008-12-02 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38415
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-05 18:48 ---
Btw ifort 11 accepts this, while the g95 version I have (from Sep. 5 2008)
gives an ICE.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 12:17 ---
Subject: Bug 38415
Author: janus
Date: Sat Dec 6 12:15:49 2008
New Revision: 142520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142520
Log:
2008-12-06 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 12:18 ---
Fixed with r142520. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 12:23 ---
Reopening. The check for comparing the interfaces was taken out again in
r142520, since there were problems with intrinsics. Details will follow.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 13:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=16841)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16841&action=view)
patch v1
Here is a draft patch which correctly copies the typespec and formal args for a
PROCEDURE st
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 22:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=17110)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17110&action=view)
patch
Here is a patch which fixes the testcases in comment #0, #1 and #7.
Dominique: Maybe you coul
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 09:42 ---
Further test cases:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/e0d04d755453a2a5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36704
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 12:04 ---
Subject: Bug 38152
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:03:51 2009
New Revision: 143430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143430
Log:
2009-01-16 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 12:30 ---
This PR can be closed, provided there are no remaining issues on darwin9 (see
comment #4 and #5). I cannot check this myself (since I don't have access to a
darwin system), but maybe Dominique can?
--
jan
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:35 ---
Extended test case, including six similar cases, of which only the first three
are detected (comment #0 corresponds to case 'E'):
! Detected:
interface
real function A ()
end function
end
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:41 ---
Subject: Bug 39998
Author: janus
Date: Tue May 5 20:41:00 2009
New Revision: 147133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147133
Log:
2009-05-05 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:47 ---
Fixed in r147133. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
al
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40039
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40045
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 14:58 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> and the interesting question is: Why is it called? There are no type-bound
> procedures (and also no components [except of t2%t].
If it's a regression it may be caused by Danie
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 21:17 ---
Subject: Bug 39630
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 6 21:17:16 2009
New Revision: 147206
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147206
Log:
2009-05-06 Janus Weil
Paul Thomas
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 21:23 ---
Status: r147206 implements PPCs with NOPASS, but PASS is still missing ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39630
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 22:07 ---
> From the little I understand 'external' should not be set to 1 for functions
> listed as intrinsics but not f95 intrinsics.
I don't see any reason why 'erfc' should get the EXTERNA
d at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
OtherBugsDependingO 39627
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40054
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-07 21:44 ---
Here is a preliminary patch which correctly rejects the code in comment #0:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c (revision
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-08 09:08 ---
Subject: Bug 39876
Author: janus
Date: Fri May 8 09:08:13 2009
New Revision: 147279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147279
Log:
2009-05-08 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-08 09:11 ---
Fixed with r147279. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40089
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-11 08:23 ---
> Thus I would reason that g95, ifort and NAG (assuming Juergen Reuter is using
> it) are correct in accepting it.
NAG indeed accepts it with -f2003. With -f95 it reports
Extension: c0.f90, line 32: Dummy
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-11 09:55 ---
Actually gfortran even has the same check as NAG that rejects a private type as
component of a public type with -std=f95. And it happens that the bug which
leads to the bogus error message lies just in this check
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-11 14:14 ---
Subject: Bug 40089
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 11 14:14:38 2009
New Revision: 147379
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147379
Log:
2009-05-11 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-11 14:19 ---
Fixed with r147379. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-13 17:15 ---
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/interface_19.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
>
> The last of these three test cases is probably invalid
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 09:42 ---
Subject: Bug 39996
Author: janus
Date: Thu May 14 09:41:41 2009
New Revision: 147528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147528
Log:
2009-05-14 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 09:46 ---
Fixed with r147528. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40164
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-15 21:51 ---
Here is a small patch which fixes the test case:
Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/primary.c (revision 147527)
+++ gcc/fortran
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 14:09 ---
Adding in the test case a line like
print *, f_array(1)%f(3.,5.)
produces a segfault in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref (trans-array.c, 2414).
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40176
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-17 14:13 ---
-fdump-parse-tree yields:
triple (struct array1_real(kind=4) & __result, real(kind=4) & a, real(kind=4) &
b)
{
...
}
real(kind=4) (*) (real(kind=4) &, real(kind=4) &) f;
f = (real(kind
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 09:19 ---
Subject: Bug 36947
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 18 09:19:20 2009
New Revision: 147655
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147655
Log:
2009-05-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/36947
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 09:19 ---
Subject: Bug 40039
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 18 09:19:20 2009
New Revision: 147655
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147655
Log:
2009-05-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/36947
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 09:28 ---
The commit in comment #4 implements the basic checking of the intents.
ToDo:
* Improve the error message, which is currently just "Type/rank mismatch in
argument ...". Should specify exactly what is no
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 09:36 ---
The commit in comment #6 implements the checking for intents.
ToDo:
* check for OPTIONAL
* better error messages
* recursive check (see comment #2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36947
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 12:28 ---
This test case with 'dynamic' array size produces a gimplification error:
PROGRAM test_prog
ABSTRACT INTERFACE
FUNCTION fn_template(n,x) RESULT(y)
INTEGER, INTENT(in) :: n
REAL, INTENT(in) :: x(
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 14:45 ---
Subject: Bug 40164
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 18 14:44:55 2009
New Revision: 147663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147663
Log:
2009-05-18 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 14:47 ---
Fixed with r147663. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 16:59 ---
Comment #0 is fixed by the following one-liner patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 147663)
+++ gcc/fortran
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 14:48 ---
Subject: Bug 40176
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 25 14:48:24 2009
New Revision: 147850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147850
Log:
2009-05-25 Janus Weil
PR fortr
uct: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40427
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-12 20:39 ---
Subject: Bug 40176
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jun 12 20:39:39 2009
New Revision: 148440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148440
Log:
2009-06-12 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-12 20:45 ---
The remaining issue from comment #5 has been fixed with the commit in comment
#7. So this can be closed.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
ority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40450
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40039
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jun 16 09:06:13 2009
New Revision: 148519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148519
Log:
2009-06-16 Janus Weil
PR fortran/36947
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:06 ---
Subject: Bug 36947
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jun 16 09:06:13 2009
New Revision: 148519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148519
Log:
2009-06-16 Janus Weil
PR fortran/36947
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:14 ---
>From the ToDo items in comment #7, r148519 fixes the first two (check for
optional and better error messages). The remaining item (recursive check) is
tracked by PR 40453, so I think this PR can be clo
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:17 ---
r148519 improves the error messages (besides adding a check for optional), so
the remaining ToDo item for this PR is: Fixing the intents of non-std
intrinsics (which are currently all intent(in)).
--
http
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 17:50 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This is presumably connected with PR 36947/40039 written by Janus Weil.
Indeed.
> I don't know whether the error message is valid.
It surely is, since the interfaces of your
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 08:33 ---
The test case is also rejected without being inside a module:
contains
function f()
intrinsic :: sin
procedure(sin), pointer :: f
f => sin
end function f
end
However, if the 'contains' i
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 08:54 ---
The error also goes away if 'implicit none' is inserted.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 09:26 ---
Mine. Here's a patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/symbol.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/symbol.c(revision 148518)
+++ gcc/fortran/symbol.c(working
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 08:09 ---
Subject: Bug 40451
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jun 18 08:09:40 2009
New Revision: 148652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148652
Log:
2009-06-18 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 08:13 ---
Fixed with r148652. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 20:27 ---
Here is a preliminary patch which fixes the test case:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(revision 148651)
+++ gcc
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 08:11 ---
Subject: Bug 40450
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jun 19 08:11:21 2009
New Revision: 148690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148690
Log:
2009-06-19 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 08:16 ---
Fixed with r148690. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||39627
nThis
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 14:11 ---
After the improvement of error messages, the test case gives:
Error: Interface mismatch in dummy procedure 'a' at (1): 'func' is not a
function
Mine.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org chang
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 14:41 ---
Btw, if comment #0 is correct, then the test case 'interface_21.f90' is wrong
(that is: the test case itself is legal, but the dg-error is wrong). It was
added by Jerry DeLisle in r129799, in connection wi
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 15:17 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Btw, if comment #0 is correct, then the test case 'interface_21.f90' is wrong
Same goes for proc_decl_8.f90.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39850
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-21 19:05 ---
Subject: Bug 39850
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 21 19:05:35 2009
New Revision: 148767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148767
Log:
2009-06-21 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-21 19:16 ---
Fixed with r148767. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 09:04 ---
> pr39850.f90:12:0: internal compiler error: in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at
> fortran/trans-types.c:995
Yeah, the same happens for the examples in PR37254. I didn't notice it before,
since I changed th
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 21:02 ---
Subject: Bug 37254
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jun 22 21:02:19 2009
New Revision: 148816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148816
Log:
2009-06-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/37254
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 21:02 ---
Subject: Bug 39850
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jun 22 21:02:19 2009
New Revision: 148816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148816
Log:
2009-06-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/37254
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 21:08 ---
r148816 fixes comment #1 and #3.
The errors in comment #4 are justified, since subroutines and functions are
mixed.
So I think this can be closed if there are no further problems.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 21:28 ---
Subject: Bug 37254
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jun 22 21:28:34 2009
New Revision: 148817
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148817
Log:
2009-06-22 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 21:56 ---
The missing checks are due to the following code in interface.c
(compare_parameter):
if (formal->ts.type == BT_DERIVED
&& formal->ts.derived && formal->ts.derived->ts.is_is
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 22:21 ---
This patch gives the correct error messages for comment #1, while avoiding the
testsuite failure of iso_c_binding_rename_1.f03:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
1 - 100 of 1036 matches
Mail list logo
