--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:44 ---
Subject: Bug 31618
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Apr 23 20:43:54 2007
New Revision: 124079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124079
Log:
2007-04-23 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-04-22 22:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 31618
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/msg01432.html
--
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-21 23:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=13402)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13402action=view)
proposed patch
This could work. Let's see if this passes regression.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-21 23:47
---
Thats an interesting approach. I am curious for the results. I also like the
adjustments to errors you have made.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31618
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-20 22:29 ---
Strictly speaking, this is not a violation of the
Fortran standard, as there are no guarantees of what happens
after an error.
Nonetheless, we should fix it.
I'm investigating.
--
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-19 21:35 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Confirming. g77 does not do it right either. :)
gfortran 4.1 doesn't get this right either, so at least
this isn't a regression. Uff :-)
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-18 15:01
---
hmm, I will investigate.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31618
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-19 03:47
---
Confirming. g77 does not do it right either. :)
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
