https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:40:18AM +, relliott at umn dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
>
> --- Comment #9 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
> I still believe there is a b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to relliott from comment #9)
> Created attachment 38654 [details]
> gfortran_pointer_bug.tgz
>
> Hello,
>
> I still believe there is a bug associated with the iso_c_bindings and
> c_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #9 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
Hello,
I still believe there is a bug associated with the iso_c_bindings and c_loc()
support. In the attached, I've created an example program that shows that
ALLOCATABLE local variables are deal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 06:51:16PM +, relliott at umn dot edu wrote:
>
> I just want to make one think certain. You quoted section 6.3.3.1 of the
> J3/04-007 document to show that a NAMED local allocatab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #7 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
Hello,
I just want to make one think certain. You quoted section 6.3.3.1 of the
J3/04-007 document to show that a NAMED local allocatable variable would be
deallocated at the end of a routine.
H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #6 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
> Have you considered the SAVE attribute?
>
> integer(c_int), pointer,save:: val
>
> laptop-kargl:kargl[246] gmake
> gfc -O3 -g -Wall -pedantic -c skeleton-f.F90
> ~/work/bin/gcc -O3 -g -Wall -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 04:36:24PM +, relliott at umn dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
>
> --- Comment #4 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
> > Ahem, give val the SAVE att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #4 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
> Ahem, give val the SAVE attribute.
>
> integer(c_int), pointer, save :: val
Hi, Thanks for your help. Unfortunately, I don't think using save will serve
my purpose in this case. Although, now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to relliott from comment #2)
> > I believe gfortran's behavior conforms to the standard. F2003 states
> >
> > When the execution of a procedure is terminated by execution
> > of a RET
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #2 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
> I believe gfortran's behavior conforms to the standard. F2003 states
>
> When the execution of a procedure is terminated by execution
> of a RETURN or END statement, an allocatable variable th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
12 matches
Mail list logo
