[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-05-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-06 23:28 --- Subject: Bug 31201 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun May 6 22:28:31 2007 New Revision: 124479 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124479 Log: 2007-05-06 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-05-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-06 23:32 --- Subject: Bug 31201 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun May 6 22:32:33 2007 New Revision: 124480 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124480 Log: 2007-05-06 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-05-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-06 23:37 --- Subject: Bug 31201 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun May 6 22:37:27 2007 New Revision: 124481 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124481 Log: 2007-05-06 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-05-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-07 00:04 --- Fixed on mainline. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-04-14 Thread patchapp at dberlin dot org
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-04-14 19:15 --- Subject: Bug number PR31201 A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker. The mailing list url for the patch is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00863.html --

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-04-03 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-03 14:50 --- I have a patch testing -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31201

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-04-03 Thread patchapp at dberlin dot org
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-04-04 05:55 --- Subject: Bug number PR31201 A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker. The mailing list url for the patch is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00126.html --

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-03-17 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-17 13:01 --- (In reply to comment #3) The front end is converting the integer8 to integer4 and not checking the range of the number first. Every time a unit number is used, there should be a check to be sure it's in the

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-03-17 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-18 02:22 --- Heres the real problem: Try compiling this with and without -fno-range-check. integer*8 :: k= 68719476746 integer*8 :: k2 = 2_8**36 + 10 print *, k=,k, k2, int(k2, kind=8), int(k2, kind=4)

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-03-16 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 20:29 --- Unit numbers are passed and stored internally as GFC_INTEGER_4, but we don't error out on too large numbers (like the one that don't fit inside a GFC_INTEGER_4). -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-03-16 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 23:01 --- I will fix this one. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/31201] Too large unit number generates wrong code

2007-03-16 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-17 06:28 --- The front end is converting the integer8 to integer4 and not checking the range of the number first. The integer value gets wrapped around and the library sees unit=10 for this test case. --