[Bug libfortran/46373] New: fflush called when reading from a string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46373 Summary: fflush called when reading from a string Product: gcc Version: 4.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libfortran AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org ReportedBy: e01reyn...@gmail.com When reading a integer from a string (ie READ(string,'(I3)') number) it calls fflush from flush_if_preconnected routine inside data_transfer_init routine. It causes me trouble in a C thread waiting for keyboard calling getc. Is there a valid reason for calling fflush while reading a string ?
[Bug libfortran/46373] fflush called when reading from a string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46373 --- Comment #3 from e01reynier at gmail dot com 2010-11-09 07:50:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > See the documentation that comes with gfortran. > > You can use > > * GFORTRAN_UNBUFFERED_ALL:: Don't buffer I/O for all units. > * GFORTRAN_UNBUFFERED_PRECONNECTED:: Don't buffer I/O for preconnected units. > > to control the buffering of IO. I try under bash with: export GFORTRAN_UNBUFFERED_ALL=y or export GFORTRAN_UNBUFFERED_PRECONNECTED=y but fflush is always called when I read from a string. Anyway reading from a string has nothing to do with buffered I/O ! Why the hell is fflush called ?
[Bug libfortran/46373] fflush called when reading from a string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46373 --- Comment #4 from e01reynier at gmail dot com 2010-11-09 07:54:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > An internal unit fflush is: Is there really an internal unit involved when reading an integer from a string ?
[Bug libfortran/46373] fflush called when reading from a string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46373 --- Comment #6 from e01reynier at gmail dot com 2010-11-09 13:39:33 UTC --- It should solve my problem. Thanks a lot !
[Bug libfortran/46373] fflush called when reading from a string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46373 --- Comment #9 from e01reynier at gmail dot com 2010-11-10 08:13:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > Aside from Janne's comments about getting rid of this function completely, I > think the little fix is a candidate for back port to 4.4 and 4.5. What do you > think Janne? It would be nice.