------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-31 14:27 ------- Working: 2009-04-05-r145558 Failing: 2009-04-06-r145580
Changelog shows a couple of I/O patches - and indeed if one uses the failing version with libgfortran of 4.4.3 the bug is gone. The I/O patch I suspect is: PR fortran/38654 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=145571 Which is - again - our beloved I/O restructuring check in. But this time, GFORTRAN_UNBUFFERED_ALL makes no difference. > "7" is definitely the right answer, IMO. I agree that "7" makes more sense than 99 or 80, but ifort always prints "1" and sunf95 prints "0" (while Open64, g95, and pathf95 do not have "ftell") - thus "7" is not as universal as 42. :-) -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot | |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Keywords| |wrong-code Known to fail| |4.4.4 4.5.0 Known to work| |4.3.4 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-03-31 14:27:13 date| | Summary|Regression: wrong results |[4.4/4.5 Regression] wrong |with ftell |results with ftell Target Milestone|--- |4.4.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43605
