https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #8 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
May be the patch should be submitted to fort...@gcc.gnu.org (for next stage1).
I'd be happy if this could be resolved. Should I submit or someone with more
clout among the gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #11 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Nasty answer: what did you do to fix it?
I RTFM and saw at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Cray-pointers.html#Cray-pointers
That's a tad bit harsh. I don't recall Russell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #8 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Not sure what correct etiquette is for checking on bug status, but this has
been sitting for close to two months now, so I thought I would poke my head in
again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #7 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
AFAICT the ICE with REAL :: ptee1(10) has been fixed for gfortran 4.9.1
and above (also for 4.8.4).
I can't easily test with either of those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #4 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #5 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #18 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33703
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33703action=edit
Proposed patch to fix module equivalence duplicates
Here is a proposed fix for the problem related
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: russelldub at gmail dot com
Consider the following cray_ptr_issue1.f90:
MODULE PTR_MOD
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL :: ptee1(*)
POINTER (ptr1, ptee1)
END MODULE PTR_MOD
PROGRAM MAIN
USE PTR_MOD
IMPLICIT NONE
WRITE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #2 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
(In reply to russelldub from comment #0)
Consider the following cray_ptr_issue1.f90:
MODULE PTR_MOD
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL :: ptee1(*)
POINTER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #3 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Any hope for movement on this? I've made some attempts at diagnosing the
issue, but not sure why equivalences behave differently than other statements
in the modules.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #4 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Any hope for movement on this? I've made some attempts at diagnosing the
issue, but not sure why equivalences behave differently than other statements
in the modules.
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: russelldub at gmail dot com
Created attachment 32558
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32558action=edit
Code to reproduce issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #1 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Equivalence statements in equivalence statements
Should read Equivalence statements in modules. Apologies.
13 matches
Mail list logo