https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
Alexander Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
Alexander Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
Alexander Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35263|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Vogt ---
Created attachment 35263
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35263&action=edit
Patch for more specific error messages
This is a suggestion for more verbose error messages... What do you th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Vogt ---
Then, it would be as simple as passing generate_error the message instead of
NULL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Vogt ---
I think this happens in io/transfer.c:
413 void *
414 read_block_form (st_parameter_dt *dtp, int * nbytes)
415 {
...
419 if (!is_stream_io (dtp))
420 {
421 if (dtp->u.p.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Vogt ---
Fair enough... I have no experience in coding for GCC. Could you give me a hint
where (which file) to start?
I would propose a message like
> At line 5 of file test.F90
> Fortran runtime error: End of rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Vogt ---
OK, I agree that the behavior is Standard conforming...
Thanks for the clarification!
Still, the error message issued is not really helpful if one is unfamiliar with
the Standard. Maybe it could be improv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Vogt ---
This is motivated by this post on Stack Overflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29489388/fortran-end-of-record-error-when-saving-a-variable/29490374#29490374
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
gfortran gives the wrong output when writing to a string that is too short:
Compiling and running this snippet
program test
implicit none
character(2) :: str
write(str,*) 100
print
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Alexander Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Vogt ---
Thanks a lot!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60509
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Vogt ---
Sorry, I did not see the other bug report... I agree - it is a duplicate!
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
Created attachment 32340
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32340&action=edit
Sample code
When passing an arra
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
When I use the TRANSPOSE intrinsic for function calls where the CONTIGUOUS
statement is set I get wrong results.
In the attached sample code I have two subroutines that multiply a 3x3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Vogt ---
Created attachment 32243
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32243&action=edit
Sample code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60286
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Vogt ---
Thanks for fixing it *that* fast (I'm impressed)!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60286
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Vogt ---
I just found out that the same holds true for STDERR...
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: a.vogt at fulguritus dot com
Created attachment 32178
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32178&action=edit
Minumum Example
The INQUIRE statement reports STDOUT as not writable: Compiling the minumum
19 matches
Mail list logo
