[Bug fortran/96843] New: gfortran rejects as shape mismatch rank one logical array arguments

Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: w.clodius at icloud dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 49153 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49153=edit A greatly reduced exam

[Bug fortran/96839] gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839 --- Comment #2 from William Clodius --- I think so. > On Aug 29, 2020, at 8:17 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr > wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839 > > Dominique d'Humieres changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug fortran/96839] New: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block

: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: w.clodius at icloud dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 49151 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49151=edit A reduced code illustrating the problem. If I have both a member funct

[Bug fortran/84922] fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

Steve Kargl --- > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:11:29PM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote: >> --- Comment #6 from William Clodius --- >> My version of gfortran, 7.1, doesn’t give the first message, which is >> correct. >> The second message is incorrect

[Bug fortran/84922] fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 --- Comment #6 from William Clodius --- My version of gfortran, 7.1, doesn’t give the first message, which is correct. The second message is incorrect. Either the clashing procedures should not be compared further, or the comparison of the

[Bug fortran/84922] fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 --- Comment #5 from William Clodius --- The code is definitely invalid, but the misleading error message did result in significant time lost by assuming the message was correct as to the problem. Note several other attempts to fix the problem

[Bug fortran/84922] fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 --- Comment #2 from William Clodius --- FWIW I get the same misleading message for other variants of illegal code.

[Bug fortran/84922] New: fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: w.clodius at icloud dot com Target Milestone: --- When compiling modules it is sometimes useful to provide an interface for the contained procedure. For some

[Bug fortran/70959] [6/7 Regression] Invalid type determination due to expression in a type declaration statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70959 --- Comment #5 from William Clodius --- 1. Maybe the placement of the warning is spurious, but is there any chance it is actually assigning the type REAL(4) to e18? 2. It sounds as if the logic of arith.c is in an incorrect order. What should

[Bug fortran/70959] Invalid type determination due to expression in a type declaration statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70959 William Clodius changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |6.1.0 Summary|Invalid

[Bug fortran/70959] New: Invalid change of value conversion warning message

Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: w.clodius at icloud dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 38415 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38415=edit A simplified program generating the inappropriate error The file mod