https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> I get
>
> gA%next(): 2
> gA%next(): 4
> gA%next(): 6
>
> gAp%next(): 2
> gAp%next(): 4
> gAp%nex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The reduced test case with gfortran 7.2.1 O get:
$ ./test
1 1
0 1
and the original:
$ ./test
gA%next(): 0
gA%next(): 0
gA%next():
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Jerry, are you actually able to reproduce the original problem from comment 0?
Or at least the one described in comment 3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > Let's close this one.
>
> Please don't. I still see the wrong output with gfortran 7.2.
>
> Dominique, did you consider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I take the tarball from comment 0, unpack it, run "make" and then "./test",
I get:
gA%next(): 0
gA%next(): 0
gA%next(): 0
gAp%next(): 2
gAp%next():
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique, did you consider the fact that two separate files are required
> to trigger the bug?
With the original code
% gfortran-fsf-4.8 -c -std=f2003 ModA.f03
% gfortran-fsf-4.8 -c -std=f2003 Mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> Let's close this one.
Please don't. I still see the wrong output with gfortran 7.2.
Dominique, did you consider the fact that two separate files are r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I get
gA%next(): 2
gA%next(): 4
gA%next(): 6
gAp%next(): 2
gAp%next(): 4
gAp%next(): 6
for 4.8 up to trunk (8.0).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-30 21:10:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Removing the -std=f2003 or putting the module into the same file as the
> subroutine makes the auto-deallocation (and nullification) go away.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-28 13:19:03 UTC ---
The simplest test case I found contains two files:
ModA.f03:
-
module ModA
implicit none
integer, allocatable :: gA
end module ModA
test.f03:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Commen
14 matches
Mail list logo
