http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #31 from Damian Rouson 2011-11-17
01:43:38 UTC ---
This is awesome news!
:D
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:54 PM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
>
> Tobia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #29 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-16
21:37:48 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Nov 16 21:37:43 2011
New Revision: 181425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181425
Log:
gcc/fortran
2011-11-16 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #28 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-09
13:51:52 UTC ---
Submitted patch (review is pending):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-11/msg00061.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||townsend at astro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-09 21:42:04 UTC ---
A loosely related bug is PR 42418, which demands that generic interfaces can
have the same name as specific procedures. When fixing this bug, one should
ideally find a soluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #24 from Daniel Franke 2010-12-28
21:49:39 UTC ---
*** Bug 40824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-08
13:11:02 UTC ---
Using the last draft patch: With the attachment 22685 to bug 46849, one gets an
error as "fun_qag" is regarded as FL_PROCEDURE and not as DERIVED; the issue
seems to be unrelated to t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-03
09:14:59 UTC ---
Last draft patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-10/msg00274.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #19 from Damian Rouson 2010-09-28
18:38:12 UTC ---
Could someone please comment on the relevance (or lack thereof) of the
component being public in the example I submitted? My real goal is to have all
data components private, but I l
--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-01 07:25 ---
*** Bug 45155 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from damian at rouson dot net 2010-07-31 02:30 ---
Tobias,
Thanks for your continued efforts on this. It will ultimately have a huge
impact on the usability of gfortran for my purposes. I look forward to
hearing more when you get back to it or when others do.
Since
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 09:03 ---
Remove assignment. I think I won't work on this in the next weeks and "New" is
better in allowing others to pick it up. If not, I will look at it again later.
The patch of attachment 20714 plus the fix in comment 1
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-25 19:55 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created an attachment (id=20714)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20714&action=view) [edit]
In module.c's import_iso_c_binding_module, one needs to replace:
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 21:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=20714)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20714&action=view)
Updated draft
Use Bugzilla as backup to make sure the patch does not get lost.
Mostly regtests now (353 FAILS
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-18 21:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=20696)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20696&action=view)
Fifth draft patch - with test case
New approach. The attached patch now also works with twisted modules (cf. te
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 16:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=20599)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20599&action=view)
Fourth version of the draft patch
And fourth version. I have just realized that the patch is too simplistic and
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 09:20 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Created an attachment (id=20592)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20592&action=view) [edit]
Third draft patch
To continue the tradition: There is again something "wron
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 09:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=20592)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20592&action=view)
Third draft patch
Updated patch: Support structure constructor if no generic function matches,
function
constra
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 18:14 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=20567)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20567&action=view) [edit]
> Second draft patch
And another omission:
--- a/gcc/fortran/module.c
+++ b/gc
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 18:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=20567)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20567&action=view)
Second draft patch
(In reply to comment #6)
> First draft patch
Updated patch: Fixes the reversed order, fixes
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 16:13 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=20557)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20557&action=view) [edit]
> First draft patch
if (type != current_interface.type
- || str
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 16:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=20557)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20557&action=view)
First draft patch
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > What a horrible rule...
What do you m
--- Comment #5 from damian at rouson dot net 2010-05-04 14:25 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> What a horrible rule...
>
I'm not sure why you don't like it, but the reason for the rule is to have the
ability to overload the intrinsic structure constructors. The intrinsic
structure const
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 12:09 ---
What a horrible rule...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 17:25 ---
Another related quote from the F2003 standard:
C489 (R457) If derived-type-spec is a type name that is the same as a generic
name, the component-spec-list shall not be a valid actual-arg-spec-list for a
function refer
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 21:02 ---
Quote from the standard:
"12.3.2 Specification of the procedure interface" [...]
"A generic name may be the same as a derived-type name, in which case all of
the procedures in the interface block shall be functions."
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||20585
nThis||
S
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-11 22:41 ---
Confirm; this F2003 feature is not yet implemented.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
31 matches
Mail list logo
