[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE

2006-11-21 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 07:34 --- Fixed on trunk. Will go to 4.2 in a day or so. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/29936] Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE

2006-11-21 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 06:12 --- Patch in progress -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/29936] New: Missed constraint on RECL=specifier in unformatted sequential WRITE

2006-11-21 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following example should give an EOR error. program record integer, parameter :: reclength = 10 real, dimension(reclength) :: array integer :: x = 0 open(unit=10, file="testfile", form="unformatted", access="sequential", recl=10) array = 2.0 write(10) array, 1 close(10) end progr

[Bug debug/29906] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] -g option creates internal compiler error

2006-11-21 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 04:30 --- -g -fno-emit-class-debug-always will produce the same effect on the mainline and the 4.2 branch so I am going to say this is still a 4.2/4.3 Regression. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug fortran/29926] interface overloading assignment does not handle input types correctly

2006-11-21 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 04:13 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Apparently 4.3.0 is actually performing range checking whereas > 4.2.0 was not, hence 4.2.0 would not issue an error by default. No. 4.2.0 performs range checking. The overflow is now caugh

[Bug c++/29928] typeid of unknown bound array

2006-11-21 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-22 04:05 --- Confirmed. I thought the type to which typeid is applied needs to be complete, but I can't find anything like this in the standard. W. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug c++/29927] template instantiation with function type

2006-11-21 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-22 03:59 --- What exactly do you expect the code to do? foo(); leads to an instantiation of foo with T= int()() i.e. reference to "no-arg function returning int". From thereon I am a bit confused what exactly you intend to do i

[Bug libfortran/29568] implement unformatted files with subrecords (Intel style)

2006-11-21 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 01:55 --- I noticed with ifort that with recl=25, a severe run time error is given for exceeding the record length. gfc happily proceeds and this is not related to the patch. Hmm, have we dropped an error check somewhere

Re: REGRESSION: friend function declared in class not visible in same class scope.

2006-11-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
> > >> REGRESSION: friend function declared in class not visible in same class > >> scope. > > # cat s.i > class P { > friend P A(long); > friend P B(long c) { return A(c); }; > }; This is not a bug as friends don't inject into the namespace according to the C++ standard, you ca

REGRESSION: friend function declared in class not visible in same class scope.

2006-11-21 Thread Bodo Thiesen
>> REGRESSION: friend function declared in class not visible in same class >> scope. # cat s.i class P { friend P A(long); friend P B(long c) { return A(c); }; }; # for ver in 3.3.6 3.4.6 4.1.1 > do > gcc-config i686-pc-linux-gnu-$ver >/dev/null 2>&1 > source /etc/

[Bug libfortran/29568] implement unformatted files with subrecords (Intel style)

2006-11-21 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 01:36 --- Thats what I get for late nite fun! :) Initializing x gives a clean valgrind check. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29568