--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-04 20:28 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > > should -c explain how a .mod file is created?
> >
> > IMHO, the answer is a resounding 'no.' Adding such information
> &
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-17 20:54 ---
Fixed on trunk. Not backport.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 23:18 ---
This was fixed in March 2009 on trunk. With the pending
release of 4.4.3 and the current state of trunk, I see
no reason to back port this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42550
--- You are
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 05:49 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> [forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/501560]
>
> "gfortran documentation lacks any kind of info about how to create a module
> .mod file. It should be quite easy to
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 00:59 ---
Note comment #16 from PR 38823.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42550
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 00:55 ---
Code compiles fine on trunk, and a sensible error is emitted
when compiled with -std=f95.
troutmask:sgk[215] cat we.f90
PROGRAM myProg
REAL :: sqrt2 = 2**0.5
PRINT*, sqrt2
END PROGRAM myProg
troutmask:sgk[216
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-22 19:14 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I don't know the fortran policy on closing bug reports with regressions; is
> there no chance to backport the fix to the active branches?
It isn't a gfortran policy.
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 04:08 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
>
> I had ONLY HOPEd VOLATILE statement in fortran 77 EXTENSION of gfortran.
> I thought that would be convenient
> on small modification of legacy fortran 77 program.
You&
--- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 02:24 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Thank all of you.
> I could understand what make it different.
>
> There is no 'volatile' statement in fortran77 syntax of gfortran.
> Of course, volatile is
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 20:54 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> In other words, I'm after an analogue of ifort's
> -mp/-fltconsistency/-mieee-fp.
>
GCC supports many many many more CPU architectures than ifort. This
isn&#x
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 17:44 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Exactly the same bug has been fixed about a year ago in g95. You may want to
> borrow some of its code.
>
gfortran and g95 have diverged to the point that code in g95
is irrelev
11 matches
Mail list logo
