http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #29 from Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
17:52:20 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Feb 2 17:52:14 2011
New Revision: 169614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169614
Log:
2011-01-26 Tobias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #28 from Xavier zazzou at gmail dot com 2011-01-29 21:47:19 UTC
---
I tried again to build gcc 4.6 (from svn) and i succeeded. The patch works
fine.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #26 from Xavier zazzou at gmail dot com 2011-01-28 09:11:27 UTC
---
Thanks for your work.
Question : I tried to build my own version, but i did not succeed.
(1) gcc-4.5.2 : ok
(2) gcc-4.5.2 + modified/added files from trunk (4.6) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #27 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
09:45:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Question : I tried to build my own version, but i did not succeed.
(1) gcc-4.5.2 : ok
(2) gcc-4.5.2 + modified/added files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-22
21:50:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
so, I am bit lost, bug is resolved or not ?
Correction available with next version of gcc ?
No the bug (or problem report, PR)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-22
21:58:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
It is not resolved because we are waiting for an interpretation from the
Fortran standards committee on whether the test case is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-18
12:57:11 UTC ---
Related: PR 47339
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #20 from Xavier zazzou at gmail dot com 2011-01-18 13:14:38 UTC
---
Hi,
so, I am bit lost, bug is resolved or not ?
Correction available with next version of gcc ?
Thanks,
Xavier
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-18
13:27:48 UTC ---
It is not resolved because we are waiting for an interpretation from the
Fortran standards committee on whether the test case is valid or invalid
Fortran.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-02
06:44:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Interpretation request for the June J3 meeting:
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/192/10-146.txt
Proposed edit is to allow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 18:42 ---
Interpretation request for the June J3 meeting:
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/192/10-146.txt
Proposed edit is to allow ALLOCATABLEs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 08:45 ---
See also: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2010-February/003401.html
where Van and Malcolm agreed that changes should be done.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 08:22 ---
Replying to myself (comment #10):
I think one should really send a interpretation request.
I have now created one and sent it to Van.
What about POINTERs?
Pointers seem to be treated similarly to allocatables.
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 15:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(NAG f95 v5.1 and g95 reject it unconditionally; ifort allows it by default
but
rejects it with -stand f95 or -stand f03.)
I think one should really send a interpretation request.
I
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 16:02 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Replying to myself (comment #10):
I think one should really send a interpretation request.
I have now created one and sent it to Van.
Did you include the language from F2008 that
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 21:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=19899)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19899action=view)
Draft patch - misses modifications to nml_get_addr_expr
The current standard is weird:
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 02:06
---
After reading the thread on clf, its still not very clear. The wording is less
then perfect, but thinking out of the box I suppose it would be reasonable to
allow it in the namelist as long as the array gets
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 07:32 ---
(NAG f95 v5.1 and g95 reject it unconditionally; ifort allows it by default but
rejects it with -stand f95 or -stand f03.)
I think one should really send a interpretation request.
A patch would be the following.
--- Comment #4 from zazzou at gmail dot com 2010-02-15 08:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I've posted a question to c.l.f about this code. I
believe the language of the standard is contradictory
and as such the code can be interpreted as illegal or
legal.
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 17:04 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
I've posted a question to c.l.f about this code. I
believe the language of the standard is contradictory
and as such the code can be interpreted as illegal or
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 20:33
---
What is this?
REAL, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: TAB
If not assumed size?
Also, assuming it is something else, would it be invalid to use the namelist
anywhere if TAB has not been allocated before it is used?
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 21:47 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
What is this?
REAL, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: TAB
If not assumed size?
Also, assuming it is something else, would it be invalid to use the namelist
anywhere if TAB has not been
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 21:50 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Also, assuming it is something else, would it be invalid to use the namelist
anywhere if TAB has not been allocated before it is used?
I forgot to reply to this part. See comment #2
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-14 17:21 ---
Yes indeed! Section 5.4 of F2003 removes most of the restrictions for
namelist-group-objects. Ifort 11.1 does the right thing with your testcase.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-14 17:27 ---
NAMELIST/TOTO/TAB
1
Error: NAMELIST attribute conflicts with ALLOCATABLE attribute in 'tab' at (1)
Test file :
PROGRAM MAIN
REAL, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: TAB
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 01:29 ---
I've posted a question to c.l.f about this code. I
believe the language of the standard is contradictory
and as such the code can be interpreted as illegal or
legal.
28 matches
Mail list logo
