--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-23 08:40 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-23 08:39 ---
This implemented bonus feature #2 from comment #3. Closing now.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-23 08:38 ---
Subject: Bug 38936
Author: domob
Date: Thu Sep 23 08:37:54 2010
New Revision: 164550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164550
Log:
2010-09-23 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-23 08:38 ---
Subject: Bug 44044
Author: domob
Date: Thu Sep 23 08:37:54 2010
New Revision: 164550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164550
Log:
2010-09-23 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-23 08:38 ---
Subject: Bug 45474
Author: domob
Date: Thu Sep 23 08:37:54 2010
New Revision: 164550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164550
Log:
2010-09-23 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 10:05 ---
Mine.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 20:20 ---
I guess we can close this now.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 19:51 ---
Subject: Bug 45525
Author: domob
Date: Fri Sep 3 19:50:44 2010
New Revision: 163840
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163840
Log:
2010-09-03 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 18:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=21687)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21687&action=view)
Proposed patch
Patch to fix this. I wonder why it did not show up for me before, but I'm
taking t
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 13:11 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 13:11 ---
Subject: Bug 34162
Author: domob
Date: Fri Sep 3 13:10:40 2010
New Revision: 163813
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163813
Log:
2010-09-03 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 08:04 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 08:02 ---
Subject: Bug 44602
Author: domob
Date: Fri Sep 3 08:01:51 2010
New Revision: 163798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163798
Log:
2010-09-03 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 18:27 ---
Experimental patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-08/msg00456.html
It seems to do what it is supposed to (basically) and also runs the full
test-case of PR 44709 comment 0, but there seems to be at least
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 12:07 ---
Mine.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-28 07:26 ---
I agree, this is also something I thought about in the past. And to be
complete, we could also just do the other way round?
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-26 19:54 ---
This fixed association to CLASS entities and also reworked SELECT TYPE to use
the same workings internally. Still open: Association to strings and
derived-types, and the extended checks for illegal usage of names
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-26 19:52 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-26 19:51 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-26 19:49 ---
Subject: Bug 44047
Author: domob
Date: Thu Aug 26 19:48:43 2010
New Revision: 163572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163572
Log:
2010-08-26 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-26 19:49 ---
Subject: Bug 45384
Author: domob
Date: Thu Aug 26 19:48:43 2010
New Revision: 163572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163572
Log:
2010-08-26 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
--- Comment #13 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-26 19:49 ---
Subject: Bug 38936
Author: domob
Date: Thu Aug 26 19:48:43 2010
New Revision: 163572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163572
Log:
2010-08-26 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/38936
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-25 16:34 ---
Taking.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-25 16:33 ---
Taking.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #12 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:58 ---
See also PR 45369 which has a rather complicated test-case for association to
derived-types (as is currently not yet working).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:58 ---
Thanks for the test-case, I'll check against it when this will be implemented.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45369
--- Comment #11 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:57 ---
*** Bug 45369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:57 ---
I only get a limited set of errors:
test.f03:188.10:
x_dist = pt1 % Get (X_COORD) - pt2 % Get (X_COORD)
1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
test.f03:189.10:
y_dist = pt1 % Get
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-19 16:07 ---
Fixed the lower bounds remapping, and the F95 issue claimed was already
working. Thus closing.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-19 16:06 ---
Fixed (with an extended version of the patch attached above).
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-19 16:02 ---
Subject: Bug 29785
Author: domob
Date: Thu Aug 19 16:02:30 2010
New Revision: 163377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163377
Log:
2010-08-19 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/29785
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-19 16:02 ---
Subject: Bug 45016
Author: domob
Date: Thu Aug 19 16:02:30 2010
New Revision: 163377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163377
Log:
2010-08-19 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/29785
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-18 19:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=21514)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21514&action=view)
Partial patch.
This implements rank remapping and also bounds remapping as for PR 45016.
Tests see
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 17:38 ---
Tobias (and all): Do you think we should check for "the size of data-target
shall not be less than the size of data-pointer-object" at runtime when
-fcheck=bounds is given?
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 16:00 ---
Also working on this, as suggested by Tobias in PR 29785 maybe this can be done
together.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 14:14 ---
Confirmed (from my point of view)
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 08:23 ---
This implements association to variables and removes the problems that were
still there with array expressions and bounds. What's still missing is:
* Association to polymorphic entities
* Association to st
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 08:20 ---
Subject: Bug 38936
Author: domob
Date: Tue Aug 17 08:20:03 2010
New Revision: 163295
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163295
Log:
2010-08-17 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-16 08:59 ---
Also one thing to note is that associate-names associated to expressions (which
must not appear in variable definition contexts) are currently accepted as
actual arguments to INTENT([IN]OUT) arguments. This should
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-16 07:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-15 20:25 ---
This extended the support to array-expressions -- the original example works
now. Next will be a rework to do the association in the trans phase, which is
probably necessary to get full array support and association
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-15 19:46 ---
Subject: Bug 38936
Author: domob
Date: Sun Aug 15 19:46:21 2010
New Revision: 163268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163268
Log:
2010-08-15 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-15 16:26 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-15 15:28 ---
Subject: Bug 45197
Author: domob
Date: Sun Aug 15 15:28:10 2010
New Revision: 163261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163261
Log:
2010-08-15 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 15:02 ---
Mine.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45197
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 10:03 ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 09:07 ---
Subject: Bug 45117
Author: domob
Date: Thu Jul 29 09:06:53 2010
New Revision: 162670
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162670
Log:
2010-07-29 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 09:55 ---
Fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 09:53 ---
Subject: Bug 44709
Author: domob
Date: Fri Jul 23 09:53:45 2010
New Revision: 162450
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162450
Log:
2010-07-23 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45019
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 09:06 ---
I'll work on this.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 17:50 ---
I just hit it, too:
subroutine foo (x)
procedure(intf) :: x
abstract interface
integer function intf ()
end function intf
end interface
print *, x()
end subroutine foo
--
domob at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 12:31 ---
Fixed the clean-up issues. Still remaining is the rejects-valid (2b) of
Tobias' original comment. I'll keep on with that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44709
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 12:24 ---
Subject: Bug 44709
Author: domob
Date: Thu Jul 15 12:23:47 2010
New Revision: 162219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162219
Log:
2010-07-15 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 13:05 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-07/msg00058.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44709
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 11:48 ---
Mine.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 16:50 ---
This first commit implements association to scalar expressions as a first step.
More to follow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 14:48 ---
Subject: Bug 38936
Author: domob
Date: Thu Jun 10 14:47:49 2010
New Revision: 160550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160550
Log:
2010-06-10 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 13:24 ---
Taking this finally.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 07:49 ---
Closing, the missing part has its own PR 43214 now (which I think is a good
idea).
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 07:48 ---
This is mentioned as still missing in PR 41177 which I kept open for that, but
it's probably really a good idea to have a new PR. I'll close 41177 instead,
referring here. Note that there might be some
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 15:07 ---
*** Bug 42912 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 15:07 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43169 ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 13:51 ---
I hit this bug, too, it seems. My reduced test-case:
PROGRAM analysis
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE numlist
REAL, ALLOCATABLE :: nums(:)
END TYPE numlist
TYPE(numlist) :: lines
ALLOCATE (lines%nums(1))
CALL
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 18:26 ---
This is part of what I mention in comment 6 of PR 39626, will work on it there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43019
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 18:26 ---
*** Bug 43019 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 18:26 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39626 ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:45 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:44 ---
Subject: Bug 39171
Author: domob
Date: Tue Feb 9 10:44:33 2010
New Revision: 156620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156620
Log:
2010-02-09 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
/MINVAL/MAXVAL
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 07:30 ---
Fixed (cleared the documentation), but of course the missing support for
CHARACTER arguments is still not fixed.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 07:28 ---
Subject: Bug 41507
Author: domob
Date: Tue Feb 9 07:27:47 2010
New Revision: 156618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156618
Log:
2010-02-09 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-01 16:30 ---
Yes, in theory... But now I have holidays (since in some sense this evening)
I'll get on hopefully soon so it will be well in 4.5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41507
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-31 12:21 ---
Mine.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:34 ---
Will work on this, as Tobias suggested the warning could depend on -Wsurprising
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:33 ---
Implemented on trunk with (basically) the patch attached.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:31 ---
Subject: Bug 22552
Author: domob
Date: Sun Dec 27 09:30:57 2009
New Revision: 155479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155479
Log:
2009-12-27 Francois-Xavier Coudert
Dani
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 14:58 ---
Well, on 10th of August I posted this to the mailing list to get comments about
what to do with this PR and some other. I did so far never get any replies :)
So actually I'd like to work things out here and e
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19258)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19258&action=view)
Test case for ELEMENTAL type-bound procedure call
This is a test-case for the still missing part as per t
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:45 ---
This fixes most of the issues mentioned, except that it does not yet allow
calling an ELEMENTAL type-bound procedure on a non-scalar base object; this
leads to an ICE and thus I disabled it for now. I'll ke
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|domob at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:39 ---
Subject: Bug 41177
Author: domob
Date: Tue Dec 8 11:39:20 2009
New Revision: 155086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155086
Log:
2008-12-08 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:58 ---
Thanks for reminding me, Tobias! Actually, yes, I still plan to fix this. I
probably don't have time and motivation right now to work on a "general plan"
to improve documentation issues like that,
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 21:08 ---
I've not checked the standard about this, but seems fine to me. I also give
you an ok for that patch (maybe with a test-case) if you want to submit/commit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41978
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 19:45 ---
See here for some discussion about this issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/8cef6676b6fa3750#
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41177
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41978
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 18:15 ---
Fixed on trunk, now the message really prints "module procedure" for module
procedures.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 18:13 ---
Subject: Bug 41615
Author: domob
Date: Wed Oct 7 18:13:28 2009
New Revision: 152534
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152534
Log:
2009-10-07 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 14:12 ---
As another note, I already did the mistake of indexing a string as str(n)
instead of str(n:n) for single characters multiple times; and IIRC there's not
much useful a diagnostic in any case, so maybe I can im
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 14:10 ---
I'll try to find some better formulation for the manual.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 14:09 ---
This is still happening with current gfortran trunk, though the ICE is now in
[/tmp]# gfortran-dev test.f90
test.f90: In function 'myfortran_error':
test.f90:8:0: internal compiler error: in fold_conve
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 14:04 ---
At least now this can be considered fully implemented, I think.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 10:32 ---
Confirmed, I'll investigate what we can do here (and look at similar cases).
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #16 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-05 13:19 ---
Fixed on trunk. I won't backport, as this is no real regression.
I still volunteer to rework the assigned/computed goto implementation (and have
some ideas for that) in case we deem it worth the effort, but as
--- Comment #15 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-05 13:15 ---
Subject: Bug 41403
Author: domob
Date: Mon Oct 5 13:15:35 2009
New Revision: 152448
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152448
Log:
2009-10-05 Daniel Kraft
PR fortr
--- Comment #14 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-03 14:13 ---
Here's a patch and some comments for this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-10/msg00017.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41403
--- Comment #13 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-02 16:26 ---
I'll work on this.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
al
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41507
1 - 100 of 322 matches
Mail list logo
