http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-19 22:10:40 UTC ---
r180210 fixes comment #7 (rejecting proc-pointers as argument of SIZEOF).
Left to do is only the original comment #0 at this point.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-19 22:05:26 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Oct 19 22:05:23 2011
New Revision: 180210
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180210
Log:
2011-10-19 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 13:45:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
> > Should it give the size of the pointer itself, or t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus 2011-10-18
12:48:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
> Output:
> 2
> 2
> Should it give the size of the poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:19:54 UTC ---
The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
use iso_c_binding
integer(2) :: i
integer(2), pointer :: p
print *,sizeof(i)
print *,sizeof(p)
end
Output:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:17:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> > > * reject proc-pointers for SIZEOF (comment #7)
I think one could also allow them, but then the implementation of SIZEOF needs
to be fixed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:03:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > * reject proc-pointers for SIZEOF (comment #7)
Example:
use iso_c_binding
procedure(real), pointer :: pp
procedure(real) :: proc
pp => sin
pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 11:06:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> * treat BT_CLASS in decl.c (comment #1)
Fixed with r180130.
Left to do:
> * the error in comment #0 could be downgraded to a warning (which o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 10:48:15 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Oct 18 10:48:12 2011
New Revision: 180130
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180130
Log:
2011-10-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 19:22:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> By the way, I think one should reject proc-pointers for both SIZEOF and
> C_SIZEOF. For C_SIZEOF because they are not interoperable (only type(c_fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 19:10:44 UTC ---
The following should fix comment #1:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c(revision 18007
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 regression]|C_Sizeof: Rejects valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
florian.rathgeber at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florian.rathgeber at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
16 matches
Mail list logo
