https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Feb 12 18:25:41 2018
New Revision: 257596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/54223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Feb 12 18:04:33 2018
New Revision: 257593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/54223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Feb 11 18:44:05 2018
New Revision: 257565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/54223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 02:20:20AM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
>
> Will keyword arguments in statement function references be retained as a GNU
> extension?
>
The extension will remain, but I in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #13 from mecej4 ---
Thanks for locating the relevant clauses. With your extracts serving as a
roadmap, I can find essentially the same wording in F2003, but with different
numbers for rules and constraints, in section 12.4.
R1217 fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:15:00PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find a prohibition in F2018 standard.
> > AFAICT, gfortran always supported keywords, and
> > I've developed a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:15:00PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from mecej4 ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #9)
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:52:03PM +, mecej4 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #10 from mecej4 ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #9)
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:52:03PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> > > ...
> > > w = qofs(i = i, s = hh)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:52:03PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> > Ugh. Statement functions should be removed from the Standard.
> > The simply fix, of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
mecej4 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mecej4 at outlook dot com
--- Comment #8 from m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
Ugh. Statement functions should be removed from the Standard.
The simply fix, of course, does not work if someone is clever
and uses keywords in a reference that involves a statement
function.
subroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 06:53:00PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I have a patch.
>
The patch is incomplete. If the actual and dummy arguments
type and type parameter match then, everything works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:26:50AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
>
> --- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
> Reduced testcase.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
Reduced testcase.
subroutine stepns(hh,h,s,w)
real, intent(inout) :: h,hh,s
real, intent(out) :: w
real :: qofs
qofs(s)=s
w=qofs(hh+h)
end subroutine stepns
Problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to fail|
20 matches
Mail list logo
