--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 07:27 ---
Closing, for runtime-recursion checking I accepted PR 32626.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 20:40 ---
This second commit detects cases like the one mentioned by Tobias in comment #2
on trunk/4.4 I'm going to work on a optional runtime-recursion checking
feature now as last part for this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 20:37 ---
Subject: Bug 37779
Author: domob
Date: Sun Nov 30 20:36:10 2008
New Revision: 142299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142299
Log:
2008-11-30 Daniel Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 13:12 ---
Subject: Bug 37779
Author: domob
Date: Mon Nov 24 13:10:37 2008
New Revision: 142158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142158
Log:
2008-11-24 Daniel Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-22 21:40 ---
Before closing, one should check whether a recursive-related bug remains for
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/e0d04d755453a2a5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-22 19:03 ---
Another code which is not rejected. If the parent procedure is called by a
contained procedure there must be a recursion:
subroutine test()
call sub()
contains
subroutine sub()
call test()
end subroutine su
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-15 08:30 ---
I'll take this one on. Reading quickly through the thread gives me the
impression that it is not 100% agreed upon that this should in every case be an
error (although of course nearly so). But I guess we want to reje
