--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 08:04 ---
The PR should be reported to the translation project which
operates independently of GCC.
-- Gaby
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #11 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 08:10 ---
This is reject-valid.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #3 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 08:52 ---
*** Bug 25036 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 08:52 ---
This seems to be a duplicate of PR 24945. Sorry.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24945 ***
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 08:57 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I can confirm the behavior, though I'm not sure whether we really
need to change the error message. Gaby -- you're the diagnostics
maintainer, so it's your call.
I believe it is OK to add
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 09:08 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Some warning options trigger warnings in standard C++ headers, rendering
-Werror
unusable. This can be seen with a simple example:
#include list
int main()
{
std::listint foo;
}
--- Comment #4 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 09:12 ---
Subject: Bug 24945
Author: jb
Date: Sat Nov 26 09:12:36 2005
New Revision: 107538
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107538
Log:
libgfortran ChangeLog:
2005-11-26 Janne Blomqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 09:12 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
So, I put the c++ enhancement requests as blockers to this bug.
I think -Weffc++ is now usable on mainline, but before I do any more work on
this stuff, I'd like to see the g++ side make
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 09:27 ---
Subject: Bug 24945
Author: jb
Date: Sat Nov 26 09:27:22 2005
New Revision: 107539
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107539
Log:
libgfortran ChangeLog:
2005-11-26 Janne Blomqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #6 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 09:32 ---
Subject: Bug 24945
Author: jb
Date: Sat Nov 26 09:32:21 2005
New Revision: 107540
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107540
Log:
testsuite ChangeLog:
2005-11-26 Janne Blomqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 09:58
---
(In reply to comment #2)
What is this unprintable character? Is that right?
I don't see an unprintable character in my i686-linux dump:
MAIN__ ()
{
int4 i1;
int4 i2;
{
struct __st_parameter_dtquire
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 10:04
---
This was fixed at some point, since current gfortran mainline (4.2) does it the
way you want:
$ gfortran u.f90 ./a.out
test string
But indeed, Intel output a garbage string, g95 and Sun f90 reject the code.
--- Comment #43 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-11-26 11:57 ---
i've done quick tests on ix86:
$ stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -c -gnatpg -gnata -g -I- -I. -Iada
-I../../gcc/ada ../../gcc/ada/a-except.adb -o ada/a-except.o -fno-inline -O1
-march=i{486,586,686,pentium,pentiumpro}
WORKS.
but
--- Comment #6 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-11-26 12:17 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
waiting for a short testcase and/or see if it has been fixed already.
4.1 (rev. 107414) doesn't fix this problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25004
--- Comment #44 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-11-26 12:40 ---
(In reply to comment #43)
i'll check this witout Uros' switch-mmx-mode patchset.
confirmed. Uros' patchset from PR19161 causes this ICE with -mmmx.
Uros, can you look at this?
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-26 15:53 ---
Confirmed. Works with gcc 4.1/trunk.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 16:12 ---
I believe the code is illegal from 7.5.2, page 110,
Constraint: The target shall be of the same type, kind type parameters,
and rank as the pointer.
Then on page 111, you find The target shall
gcc was configured with:
--target=$TARGET --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--prefix=$PREFIX --with-cpu=ep9312 --with-fpu=maverick
--enable-cxx-flags=-mcirrus-fix-invalid-insns --disable-altivec --disable-nls
--disable-checking --disable-werror --disable-libunwind-exceptions
--- Comment #1 from nekkar at libero dot it 2005-11-26 16:35 ---
I forgot to specify those variables:
TARGET=arm-ep9312-linux-uclibc
PREFIX=/mnt/dati/cross-gcc-4x
--
nekkar at libero dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 16:39 ---
Actually this is easy to find a testcase where we do warn (turning off DOM is
an easy example)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 16:39 ---
We have:
if (gc-contextP) {
...
set hieght
set width
set clip0min
set command
...
}
...
if (xx) {}
...
if (gc-contextP) {
...
use clipOmin
use command
use hieght
use width
use clip0min
...
}
Anyways this
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 16:39 ---
*** Bug 21750 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25043
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 16:52 ---
k1=k2=0;
e1=e2=0;
for(;;)
{
if (!e1) if(k1)
{
set n1
if (n1 0)
{
break;
}
}
if (!e2) if(k2)
{
set n2
if (n2 0)
{
break;
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-11-26
16:57 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] [hppa] 'bus error' at runtime while passing a special
struct to a C++ member function
Are you working on this? It lools like the bug has been there for a while.
I'm inclined to
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
END
SUBROUTINE S1(N)
INTEGER, OPTIONAL :: N
INTEGER :: A(3)
write(6,*) PRODUCT(A,N)
END SUBROUTINE
--
Summary: better diagnostic
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
END
SUBROUTINE S1(N)
INTEGER :: A(3)
LOGICAL :: B(3,3)
write(6,*) PRODUCT(A,B)
END SUBROUTINE
--
Summary: better diagnostic
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE t
contains
integer function foo ()
character*4 bar
foo = 21
return
entry bar ()
bar = abcd
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER, POINTER :: I
CALL S1((I))
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(I)
INTEGER, POINTER ::I
END SUBROUTINE S1
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
module M
integer, parameter :: A(2,2)=0
integer, parameter, dimension(2,2) :: B = TRANSPOSE(A)
end module M
END
--
Summary: better
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
module M
integer, parameter :: A(2,2)=0
integer, parameter, dimension(2,2) :: B = CSHIFT(A,1)
end module M
END
--
Summary: better
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER, POINTER, DIMENSION(:,:) :: i
INTEGER, POINTER, DIMENSION(:) :: a
a=NULL(i)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
REAL*8 :: I,J
COMMON /SIN/ I ! error
COMMON /COS/ J ! is OK
write(6,*) SIN(I),DCOS(J)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
integer :: a,b
NAMELIST /NLIST/ a,b
a=1 ; b=2
write(6,FMT=*,NML=NLIST)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
SUBROUTINE S1(I)
integer :: a,b(I)
NAMELIST /NLIST/ a,b
a=1 ; b=2
write(6,NML=NLIST)
END SUBROUTINE S1
END
--
Summary: better
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
STOP 001234
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
CONTAINS
FUNCTION L()
L=1
END FUNCTION L
PURE FUNCTION J(K)
INTERFACE
PURE FUNCTION K()
END FUNCTION K
END INTERFACE
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I=7
END TYPE T1
TYPE(T1), SAVE, DIMENSION(4) :: D
DATA (D(I),I=1,2) /T1(3),T1(3)/
IF (ANY(D%I.NE.(/3,3,7,7/))) write(6,*) Never
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
CONTAINS
FUNCTION F1(I) RESULT(RF1)
INTEGER :: I,K,RE1,RF1
RE1=K
RETURN
ENTRY E1(K) RESULT(RE1)
RE1=-I
RETURN
END FUNCTION F1
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I
END TYPE T1
INTERFACE ASSIGNMENT(=)
MODULE PROCEDURE S1
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(I,J)
TYPE
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
subroutine e(a)
real, intent(out) :: a(*)
a = 1.e0
end subroutine
end
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTERFACE I1
SUBROUTINE S1(I)
END SUBROUTINE S1
SUBROUTINE S2(R)
END SUBROUTINE S2
END INTERFACE I1
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE I1(I)
END SUBROUTINE I1
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: C1=1
COMMON /C1/ I
INTEGER I
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
write(6,FMT='(I0)',EOR=999,ADVANCE=NO) I
999 CONTINUE
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
NAMELIST /NML/ I
write(6,nml=nml) I
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
NAMELIST /NML/ I
write(6,nml=nml) I
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
write(6,FMT='(I0)',SIZE=J,ADVANCE=NO) I
999 CONTINUE
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
read(5,FMT=*,REC=10) I
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER*8 :: I
OPEN(10,FILE=fort.10)
CLOSE(10,IOSTAT=I)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE debug
LOGICAL debug_area
NAMELIST/debugging/debug_area
END MODULE debug
PROGRAM ding
USE debug
NAMELIST/debugging/debug_area
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: I(2,2)
I=RESHAPE((/1,2,3,4/),(/2,2/))
CALL TST(I)
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE TST(I)
INTEGER :: I(:)
write(6,*) I
END SUBROUTINE TST
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: I(2,2)
CALL TST(I)
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE TST(I)
INTEGER :: I(6)
END SUBROUTINE TST
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: I,A(10)
FORALL(I=1:10,T(I)) A(I)=I
CONTAINS
LOGICAL FUNCTION T(I)
INTEGER :: I
T=(MOD(I,2)==0)
END FUNCTION T
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
LOGICAL :: L
SELECT CASE(L)
CASE(.true.)
CASE(.false.)
CASE(.true.)
END SELECT
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I(3)
END TYPE T1
TYPE(T1), PARAMETER :: D1=T1((/1,2,3/))
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(J)
INTEGER, INTENT(INOUT) :: J
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: I(10),J(11)
write(6,*) DOT_PRODUCT(I,J)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: A(10,10)
FORALL(I=1:10,J=I:10)
A(I,J)=I+J
ENDFORALL
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
IMPLICIT NONE
INTERFACE ASSIGNMENT(=)
MODULE PROCEDURE T1
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE T1(I,J)
INTEGER, INTENT(OUT) :: I
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
EQUIVALENCE(I)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
TYPE T0
INTEGER,POINTER :: I
END TYPE T0
TYPE(T0) :: a
a=T0(1)
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: i(2,2)
END TYPE
TYPE(T1) :: a
a=T1((/1,2,3,4/))
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1
CONTAINS
CHARACTER(LEN=*) FUNCTION F1()
F1=1234
END FUNCTION F1
END SUBROUTINE S1
END MODULE M1
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
SUBROUTINE S1(*)
INTEGER :: a(2)
RETURN a
END SUBROUTINE S1
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
BLOCK DATA D
INTEGER I
DATA I /1/
END BLOCK DATA
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
TYPE SET
INTEGER CARD
END TYPE SET
END MODULE M1
MODULE INTEGER_SETS
INTERFACE OPERATOR (.IN.)
FUNCTION ELEMENT(X,A)
USE
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
FUNCTION F1()
CHARACTER(LEN=*), DIMENSION(10) :: F1
END FUNCTION F1
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
FUNCTION F1()
CHARACTER(LEN=*), POINTER :: F1
END FUNCTION F1
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
SUBROUTINE s(n)
CHARACTER(LEN=n), EXTERNAL :: a
write(6,*) a(n)
END SUBROUTINE s
FUNCTION a(n)
CHARACTER(LEN=n) :: a
a=111
END FUNCTION
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: S
CALL S()
END
SUBROUTINE S
END SUBROUTINE
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
CONTAINS
INTEGER FUNCTION F1()
NAMELIST /NML/ F2
F1=1
END FUNCTION
INTEGER FUNCTION F2()
F2=1
END FUNCTION
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
SUBROUTINE S1(I)
CHARACTER(LEN=I+J) :: a
ENTRY E1(J)
END SUBROUTINE S1
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
FUNCTION F1() RESULT(RES_F1)
INTEGER RES_F1(2,2)
INTEGER RES_E1(4)
ENTRY E1() RESULT(RES_E1)
END FUNCTION
END
--
Summary: better
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
FUNCTION F1() RESULT(RES_F1)
INTEGER :: RES_F1(4)
INTEGER :: RES_E1(3)
ENTRY E1() RESULT(RES_E1)
END FUNCTION
END
--
Summary
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I
END TYPE T1
PRIVATE :: T1
PUBLIC :: F1
CONTAINS
TYPE(T1) FUNCTION F1()
END FUNCTION
END MODULE
USE M1
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I
END TYPE T1
INTERFACE I
MODULE PROCEDURE F1
END INTERFACE
PRIVATE :: T1,F1
PUBLIC :: I
CONTAINS
INTEGER
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: i(10)
DATA (i(MODULO(j,5)),j=1,4) /4*0/
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I(2)
END TYPE T1
TYPE(T1) :: D(4)
DATA (D(i)%I,i=1,4) /8*0/
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I
END TYPE T1
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(D1)
TYPE(T1), OPTIONAL :: D1
write(6,*) PRESENT(D1%I)
END
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE M1
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(F)
INTERFACE
FUNCTION F()
INTEGER F
END FUNCTION F
END INTERFACE
END SUBROUTINE S1
END MODULE M1
USE
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
integer :: I(2,2),J(2)
CALL S(I,J)
CONTAINS
ELEMENTAL SUBROUTINE S(I,J)
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: I,J
END SUBROUTINE S
END
--
Summary
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
integer :: I(4),J(2)
CALL S(I,J)
CONTAINS
ELEMENTAL SUBROUTINE S(I,J)
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: I,J
END SUBROUTINE S
END
--
Summary
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER :: A(10),J(2),I
FORALL(I=1:2:0)
A(I)=1
END FORALL
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 18:08 ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01850.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
MODULE TT
TYPE data_type
INTEGER :: I
END TYPE data_type
INTERFACE ASSIGNMENT (=)
MODULE PROCEDURE set
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
PURE
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
module foo
integer:: i
end module foo
program bar
use foo
integer, dimension (i)::j
end program bar
--
Summary: better
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: K(2)=1
SELECT CASE(I)
CASE(MAXLOC(K,1))
END SELECT
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
Subroutine My(n1)
Dimension myArray(n1)
Save myArray
CALL xxx(myarray)
End
Subroutine xxx(myarray)
Dimension
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 18:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
That should have been i/-10.
I am going to make this bug about -(i/-10) to i/10.
Actually -(i/10) to i/-10.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24575
using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease) with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:
0 CONTINUE
END
--
Summary: better diagnostic needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 18:12 ---
Writing a fix for this one also, we don't really need to fix PR 23669 to fix
the orginal testcase in here.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I get a different behavior when compiling on powerpc/MacOSX 10.3.9 and
i686/Linux. In the first case,
the symbol is undefined while in the second case it is weak and thus link
correctly.
#include iostream
#include boost/dynamic_bitset.hpp
int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
--- Comment #1 from smirolo at hotmail dot com 2005-11-26 18:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=10342)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10342action=view)
source file to reproduce the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25107
--- Comment #2 from smirolo at hotmail dot com 2005-11-26 18:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=10343)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10343action=view)
save-temps on macos
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25107
--- Comment #3 from smirolo at hotmail dot com 2005-11-26 18:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=10344)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10344action=view)
output log on macos
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25107
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 18:30 ---
This is a dup of bug 11026 which was fixed only for 4.0.0.
The work around is to instantiated explictly.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11026 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 18:30
---
*** Bug 25107 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
