------- Comment #12 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-12-02 13:37 -------
> I am not sure that I see how the test case in #6 can ever have worked; if it > is > indeed representative of the code in CP2K, I do not see how that can have > worked either. fparser is a relatively new addition to CP2K, so FX statement might be wrt to an older version of CP2K. I'm not sure that I can completely agree with FX, I've never seen a gfortran compiled CP2K pass all our regtests without a segfault. Of course, CP2K is fairly complex so there could be bugs, but it is also quite wel tested. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29975
