--- Comment #13 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 21:13
---
Fixed in trunk and 4.5. Closing.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 20:49
---
Subject: Bug 31346
Author: dfranke
Date: Sun Jul 18 20:49:30 2010
New Revision: 162287
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162287
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2010-07-18 Daniel Franke
Paul
--- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-25 18:10
---
Subject: Bug 31346
Author: dfranke
Date: Tue May 25 18:10:01 2010
New Revision: 159838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159838
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2010-05-25 Daniel Franke
PR fortr
--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-23 22:35
---
The dupe had accepts-invalid, adding it here. Pushing back from enhancement to
normal.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-23 22:34 ---
*** Bug 36553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-20 20:10 ---
We fail to catch the invalid code
$ cat whole.f90
program main
real, dimension(2) :: a
call foo(a)
end program main
subroutine foo(a)
real, dimension(:) :: a
end subroutine foo
$ gfortran -fwhole-file -O3 who
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 01:14
---
I don't see how this can be a regression wrt g77, which doesn't have
assumed-shape arrays or even UBOUND!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31346
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-02 11:27
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Really? From how I read the standard (F2K draft), UBOUND(ARRAY, DIM) has (in
> this case) "a value equal to the upper bound for subscript DIM of ARRAY". I
> can't see it allowing retur
--- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:04 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > But even if it is the case, the compiler should report an error.
>
> This is not a requirement of the standard but is a long standing regression,
> relative to g
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 07:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I haven't seen anything in the Fortran 2003 standard forcing the subroutines
> to
> be in the contains statement.
In this case the interface is said to be implicit and the standard does no
--- Comment #3 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2007-03-26 05:58
---
Created an attachment (id=13286)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13286&action=view)
the working case
The problem arise when the subroutine is not defined in a contains statement in
the main pr
--- Comment #2 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2007-03-25 14:41
---
$ FC=gfortran; $FC -v; $FC -o test test.f; echo; ./test
Lecture des spécification à partir de
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/specs
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configuré avec: /usr/src/gcc-4.1.2/configure -
--- Comment #1 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2007-03-25 14:38
---
Created an attachment (id=13283)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13283&action=view)
program showing the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31346
13 matches
Mail list logo
