--- Comment #13 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 10:03
---
Subject: Bug 18271
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon May 8 10:03:11 2006
New Revision: 113628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113628
Log:
PR libfortran/18271
* gfortran.dg/spec_
--- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 09:59
---
Subject: Bug 18271
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon May 8 09:59:09 2006
New Revision: 113627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113627
Log:
PR libfortran/18271
* gfortran.dg/spec_
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 09:57
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I do not understand why you are closing this one as INVALID,
> since you just argued that it VALID F95 and F2003.
I'm saying that the bug report, which says "This illegal code is wron
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-05-08 09:46 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It appears that the original testcase, involving INT in as specification
> expression, is valid F95 and F2003. It was not valid F90, however, because the
> return type of INT is real. This is confir
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 09:22
---
It appears that the original testcase, involving INT in as specification
expression, is valid F95 and F2003. It was not valid F90, however, because the
return type of INT is real. This is confirmed by the results
