--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 00:04
---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for bug report and test case.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 23:41
---
Subject: Bug 34876
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 25 23:40:23 2008
New Revision: 131850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131850
Log:
2008-01-25 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 23:35
---
Subject: Bug 34876
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 25 23:34:53 2008
New Revision: 131848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131848
Log:
2008-01-25 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 07:03
---
Created an attachment (id=15014)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15014&action=view)
Preliminary patch
This patch illustrates the fix. What remains is to check cases of all other
I/O (formatt
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 05:15
---
Answering your question. Putting the write in front of the failing one causes
seeking to that record, writing it out and flushing the buffers. Writing
"grows" the file. This creates "undefined" records from th
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 06:45 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> we just bail out right now when we need to actually do something.
Yes, that's what I thought. In the circumstance where this block "exists", ie.
there is one beyond it, bailing out is OK.
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 05:41
---
I am beginning to see it now. This does not help:
if (extent[n] <= 0)
return;
we just bail out right now when we need to actually do something.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 14:54
---
Yes, I will have another look.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34876
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 09:03 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Changing summary to better reflect what is wrong.
Jerry,
Jerry,
I believe this to be something missing in the library.
Other compilers (G95 and DEC are what I can lay hands on right now),
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 05:27
---
Changing summary to better reflect what is wrong.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
