[Bug fortran/24884] compiles invalid-code

2005-11-18 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-18 13:51 
---
I think this can be marked either as WONTFIX or NEW, with severity Enhancement,
but probably not as WAITING. This is something we understand, and we could
theoretically do. We then have to decide whether we want to do it (even in a
long timescale, because it's not exactly a high priority issue).


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|normal  |enhancement
  GCC build triplet|powerpc64-linux |
   GCC host triplet|powerpc64-linux |
 GCC target triplet|powerpc64-linux |
   Keywords||diagnostic
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-11-18 13:51:24
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24884

[Bug fortran/24884] compiles invalid-code

2005-11-18 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-18 16:17 ---
Let's make it WONTFIX then.  Even the theoretical possibility of fixing this
probably doesn't exist.  Catching this kind of thing is a Very Hard Problem,
it's more something for a static checker or something like that.  Not something
a compiler should have to diagnose.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution||WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24884

[Bug fortran/24884] compiles invalid-code

2005-11-15 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-15 23:15 ---
Show me one compiler that catches this.  HP doesn't, and Intel doesn't.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||steven at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24884