[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 04:08 --- (In reply to comment #18) > > I had ONLY HOPEd VOLATILE statement in fortran 77 EXTENSION of gfortran. > I thought that would be convenient > on small modification of legacy fortran 77 program. You've completed miss

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread sunjoong at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 from sunjoong at gmail dot com 2007-06-21 03:27 --- I appreciate kargl's comments; they were helpful. I had known there is VOLATILE attribute in new Fortran standard but I had worked with "LEGACY" fortran77 program! I'll write C code if I shuld write one; that is more co

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 02:24 --- (In reply to comment #16) > Thank all of you. > I could understand what make it different. > > There is no 'volatile' statement in fortran77 syntax of gfortran. > Of course, volatile is not fortran77 standard, I thin

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread sunjoong at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 from sunjoong at gmail dot com 2007-06-20 23:34 --- Thank all of you. I could understand what make it different. There is no 'volatile' statement in fortran77 syntax of gfortran. Of course, volatile is not fortran77 standard, I think, but a certian implimentation support

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-19 08:11 --- So this is just a dup of bug 323 so closing as such. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 323 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --