[Bug fortran/30689] equivalence modifies common block

2007-02-04 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #7 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2007-02-04 22:56 --- Subject: Re: equivalence modifies common block >>>>> "pault" == pault at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: pault> --- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu d

[Bug fortran/30689] equivalence modifies common block

2007-02-03 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #4 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2007-02-04 00:13 --- OK, maybe gfortran is right. It doesn't make much sense to me, but this is what I found from wikipedia links in its fortran entry: "Variables and arrays in common blocks can appear in EQUIVALENCE statement

[Bug fortran/30689] equivalence modifies common block

2007-02-03 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #3 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2007-02-03 23:52 --- I am sorry for misunderstanding the program. I just took out of something big, to show some weird behavior of COMMON and EQUIVALENCE. As you can imagine -fdefault-integer-8 trick is the only solution to make those old 1

[Bug fortran/30689] New: equivalence modifies common block

2007-02-03 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
oduct: gcc Version: 4.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30689

[Bug fortran/30613] New: gfortran -fopenmp -static produces bad executable

2007-01-27 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
executable Product: gcc Version: 4.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug fortran/30450] calling subroutine with constant parameter

2007-01-12 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #3 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2007-01-12 18:23 --- Subject: Re: calling subroutine with constant parameter >>>>> "pinskia" == pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: pinskia> --- Comment #1 from pinskia

[Bug fortran/30450] New: calling subroutine with constant parameter

2007-01-12 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
ormal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30450

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on 32-bit targets

2005-12-28 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #18 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-12-29 07:34 --- Created an attachment (id=10564) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10564&action=view) patch against gcc-4.1-20051223 As requested, I am posting Rob's patch which goes against the Dec 23

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on 32-bit targets

2005-12-26 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #17 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-12-26 15:54 --- (In reply to comment #16) > Created an attachment (id=10296) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10296&action=view) [edit] > Patch to change delimitters to 4 bytes for unformatted records

[Bug fortran/24945] New: calling two open statements (same unit) without close fails

2005-11-19 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24945

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on 32-bit targets

2005-11-19 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Comment #15 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-11-19 19:09 --- I didn 't know how to compile gcc-4.1... so I couldn't reply before. I realised I have to install both mpfr and gmp libraries for gcc to compile. It complains only about gmp :-( Yes, this patch works OK

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on 32-bit targets

2005-05-31 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-05-31 08:41 --- Great work! Thanks a million! Somehow I also have a problem with the name of the option, since g77 has exactly the same problem. When I compile with the g77 I get 8 byte headers on AMD64, so the name g77

[Bug fortran/20932] Writing of strings sometime does not work

2005-04-19 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-04-20 01:14 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Can you try compiling your code with a compiler from > today's source (2005-05-10)? Thomas Koenig just committed > several fixes for handling End-of-Record. I had t

[Bug fortran/19292] [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran

2005-04-19 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
-- Bug 19292 depends on bug 17992, which changed state. Bug 17992 Summary: [4.0 only] reading empty line does not return 0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17992 What|Old Value |New Value --

[Bug libfortran/17992] [4.0 only] reading empty line does not return 0

2005-04-19 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-04-20 01:10 --- (In reply to comment #10) > Can you try with a later build and tell us what your exact source and output > is? OK, now it is fixed! I had to wait one more week to get the new snapshot. Thank you ver

[Bug libfortran/17992] [4.0 only] reading empty line does not return 0

2005-04-10 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-04-11 01:58 --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Fixed in 4.1.0, waiting for inclusion into 4.0. > > > > I just tried 4.1-20050410 and the p

[Bug libfortran/17992] [4.0 only] reading empty line does not return 0

2005-04-10 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-04-11 00:46 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Fixed in 4.1.0, waiting for inclusion into 4.0. I just tried 4.1-20050410 and the problem is still there. So what was fixed? Or maybe the patches are not in this snapshot

[Bug fortran/20932] Writing of strings sometime does not work

2005-04-10 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-04-11 00:42 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Can you try compiling your code with a compiler from > today's source (2005-05-10)? Thomas Koenig just committed > several fixes for handling End-of-Record. I renamed

[Bug fortran/20932] New: Writing of strings sometime does not work

2005-04-10 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20932

[Bug libfortran/19303] New: Opteron problem when writing binary files: 8-byte record header instead of 4-byte record header

2005-01-06 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
of 4-byte record header Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: libfortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si

[Bug libfortran/17992] reading empty line does not return 0

2005-01-06 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-01-06 23:16 --- > > we are trying to read 3 things, the '/' which consumes the first /n, then two > numbers (each I2). the file has 2 /n's in it. > I simplified thing and threw out the / from for

[Bug fortran/17992] New: reading empty line does not return 0

2004-10-14 Thread milan at cmm dot ki dot si
normal Priority: P2 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: milan at cmm dot ki dot si CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17992