https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #12 from Walt Brainerd ---
I made a misstatement in my previous message.
gfortran 7.0.1 does not accept this.
Sorry, my "test" was not correct.
I am going to post a query to comp-fortran-90 to see what others think.
On Fri, Jun 9,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #11 from Walt Brainerd ---
I am not sure what you changed your mind from or to :-).
Yes, the assignment is invalid because r is real the the rhs is type B_type.
And, yes, the type of the io list item is B_type.
However, the uncomme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
After a lot of head scratching I think I am changing my mind on this one.
If one tries to assign to a real variable as in:
program test_b_write_dt_mod
use :: B_write_dt_mod
implicit none
type(B_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walt Brainerd from comment #7)
> I took "not processed by" to mean that there is no DT edit descriptor
> corresponding to it.
>
> But I see how this might be interpreted otherwise.
>
> Intel ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #7 from Walt Brainerd ---
I took "not processed by" to mean that there is no DT edit descriptor
corresponding to it.
But I see how this might be interpreted otherwise.
Intel agrees with me FWIW.
Maybe this is a question for J3 (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walt Brainerd from comment #1)
> Forgot to add:
>
> Pls see F08 std 9.6.3(7) 2nd bullet
I see:
BULLET: If a list item of derived type in a formatted input/output statement is
not processed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, I cut the example down one step too many.
Please try this one. It works OK without all the stuff
related to DTIO.
BTW, I didn't mention: this is on Windows 10.
module B_write_dt_mod
implicit none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #3 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, when trying to cut the bug to the smallest problem,
I went too far. I will start again.
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:52 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #1 from Walt Brainerd ---
Forgot to add:
Pls see F08 std 9.6.3(7) 2nd bullet
15 matches
Mail list logo
