--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18108
--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-08-02
07:54 ---
I do apologise for missing this one: My fix for PR16940 fixes this fellow too.
I would be grateful if the reporters can give the latest cvs a whirl to confirm
that this is the case.
This expanded
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-08-02
10:14 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
I do apologise for missing this one: My fix for PR16940 fixes this fellow
too.
I would be grateful if the reporters can give the latest cvs a whirl to
confirm
that
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
10:24 ---
My example from the SPEC benchmark candidate is also fixed. Yay!
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-15
20:25 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
This is one bad nasty ugly bug.
Yep.
This works (for small values of works) if the IMPLICIT NONE
is omitted.
The problem appears to be that resolve_symbol() doesn't find the
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-07
22:37 ---
This is one bad nasty ugly bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Additional Comments From david dot c dot gregory at gmail dot com
2005-06-13 14:13 ---
I too would happily test gfortran, if this bug were resolved. However, my
code-base makes heavy use of function overloading at a core level. Thus until
this bug is fixed, the compiler is all but
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
2005-06-09 10:16 ---
Lots of previously working code (somewhere around December 2004) now
(June 2005) exhibits this bug, it seems that this bug is a side-effect
of something else. Call it a regression ?
Sorry for
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-08
08:57 ---
Surprisingly (to me), adding a second call to the function resolves the
problem,
i.e. in the examples below the following code works
subroutine baz
logical l
l = bar (3)
l = bar
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
2005-06-08 09:02 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Does this mean that calling twice is a verified workaround solution? Should I
have confidence in the results of this workaround?
Even if it was, this is not a practical
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-08
10:20 ---
Subject: Re: [gfortran] overloading does not work for
functions
martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
2005-06-08 09:02
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-08
11:28 ---
Subject: Re: [gfortran] overloading does not work for
functions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lots of previously working code (somewhere around December 2004) now
(June 2005) exhibits
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-05
16:40 ---
*** Bug 21401 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-11
00:17 ---
*** Bug 19359 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-30 15:21
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Surprisingly (to me), adding a second call to the function resolves the
problem,
i.e. in the examples below the following code works
subroutine baz
logical l
l = bar (3)
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-30 15:22
---
I meant -fdump-parse-tree
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18108
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
2004-11-26 13:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=7613)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7613action=view)
a test case for the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18108
--- Additional Comments From bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-26
14:40 ---
confirmed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pr18398]$ gfc z.f90
In file z.f90:27
l = bar (3)
1
Error: Symbol 'bar' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pr18398]$ gfc --version
GNU Fortran 95 (GCC
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
2004-11-12 10:40 ---
Could one of the bug masters please confirm this bug, to put it on the radar of
the Fortran developers?
Thanks,
Martin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18108
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-11-11
11:44 ---
Surprisingly (to me), adding a second call to the function resolves the problem,
i.e. in the examples below the following code works
subroutine baz
logical l
l = bar (3)
l = bar (3) !
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-10-29 08:13
---
Further reduced, same error:
module foo
implicit none
interface bar
module procedure bar_real
end interface
contains
function bar_real (rarg)
real rarg
logical bar_real
bar_real =
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to fail||4.0.0
22 matches
Mail list logo
