--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-12
19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 19155
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-12 19:59:17
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/gfor
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-12 17:48
---
Sigh. I really, really, detest these special cases of "E+00" and "+ ",
which violate the Fortran 95 standard. But, g77 appears to accept
both. :-(
OK for mainline. :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-12
09:21 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> NIST test FM110 is still failing, and here is the reduced testcase:
Proposed patch for this problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-06/msg00240.html
--
What
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-12
08:05 ---
NIST test FM110 is still failing, and here is the reduced testcase:
$ cat FM110.f
real a
character*80 c
c = "+ "
read (c,"(F11.4)") a
print *, a
end
$ g77 FM1
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21875
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16
20:19 ---
Testcase pr19155.f does not fail on i386-linux, i686-freebsd and sparc-solaris.
With the patch committed, it is supposed to work. Can you investigate further
(compile the testcase manually and see why it f
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16 19:45
---
The testcase pr19155.f fails on AIX. I am confused if this is suppose to work
after the patch or not. Either the testcase should be XFAILed or something else
is wrong with the patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
21:38 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
11:37 ---
I don't close this one since NIST test FM110 is not fixed with this patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
11:31 ---
Subject: Bug 19155
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-09 11:27:06
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
11:27 ---
Subject: Bug 19155
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-09 11:21:02
Modified files:
libgfortran/io : unix.c
libgfortran: Chan
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
09:41 ---
Well, the discussion on c.l.f. seems clear: the standard forbids this, but does
not require that we issue an error. It may be worth accepting it with a warning.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-31 21:43
---
I posted a short question to c.l.f.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-31
16:38 ---
Summary of what other compilers do: Portland, Sun and IBM accept it, while NEC
and MIPSpro reject it. My position would be: we go with the Standard.
Can we somehow have confirmation that Steve's interpret
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-03-11 22:33 ---
My vote would be to fix the NIST test suite, which
has invalid code. ;-) Gfortran is doing the right
thing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-03-11
21:21 ---
My vote would go for "fixing" this, because of the NIST
testsuite failure.
Thomas
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-03-02
10:31 ---
I agree with Steve's comment on this. As I am currently digging into the I/O
library, I need to know if it's worth working on this one. Knowing that many
commercial compilers (Intel, Portland, Sun) issue
--- Additional Comments From bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
23:45 ---
added nist test to the title.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|blanks not treated as
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2004-12-26 19:45 ---
Looks like you've found a bug in g77, and if you're reduction of NIST's 110
test is correct, then NIST also has the same bug. Here follows my digging
into this problem.
>From the Fortran
20 matches
Mail list logo
