https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-30 16:36:09 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 30 16:36:02 2012
New Revision: 191870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191870
Log:
2012-09-30 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Benson 2012-09-22
19:39:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3:
> >
> > CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT (IN) argument. Its
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 19:02:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3:
>
> CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT (IN) argument. Its value
>shall be
> *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-22
18:38:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The only other compiler I have access to is ifort 11.1 (which also accepts
> it),
> so that doesn't add much unfortunately.
As do crayftn and PGI, however
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Benson 2012-09-22
17:02:06 UTC ---
Thanks for clarifying this. It does look like this is invalid according to the
standard. I'll think of another way to do what I was trying to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Benson 2012-09-22
16:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > While it would be nontrivial to fully enforce these constraints by a runtime
> > check, I think they might effectively m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 13:18:31 UTC ---
Moreover there is a typo in the documentation of C_F_POINTER:
Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 10:32:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Andrew, have you tried your test case with any other compilers?
ifort 12.1 and Oracle Studio 12.3 seem to accept the test case without erro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:53:51 UTC ---
The question is if it is really valid. At first sight both F03 and F08 only
specify that FPTR, i.e. the second argument to C_F_POINTER, shall be a pointer
with INTENT(O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:39:44 UTC ---
The dump for comment 0 shows (with -fdump-tree-original):
MAIN__ ()
{
void * cself;
struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p self;
&self = (struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p *)
14 matches
Mail list logo
