[Bug fortran/36592] F2003: Procedure pointer in COMMON

2008-09-30 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 15:22 --- FIXED on the trunk (4.4). -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/36592] F2003: Procedure pointer in COMMON

2008-09-30 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 15:20 --- Subject: Bug 36592 Author: burnus Date: Tue Sep 30 15:19:25 2008 New Revision: 140790 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140790 Log: 2008-09-30 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran

[Bug fortran/36592] F2003: Procedure pointer in COMMON

2008-09-29 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 09:40 --- Updated patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-09/msg00447.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36592

[Bug fortran/36592] F2003: Procedure pointer in COMMON

2008-09-23 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-23 12:44 --- (In reply to comment #2) > How about the following patch? Looks very good, and does what it should. Just one thing: We will also have to check for attr.in_common, so that normal procptrs don't get messed up. Otherwise

[Bug fortran/36592] F2003: Procedure pointer in COMMON

2008-09-22 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-22 20:22 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=16381) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16381&action=view) [edit] > Although this test case compiles without error, it gives the wrong output: I

[Bug fortran/36592] F2003: Procedure pointer in COMMON

2008-09-22 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-22 16:50 --- Created an attachment (id=16381) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16381&action=view) patch The attached patch is as far as I got with this up to now. It regtests fine and makes the following modifie