https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-15
08:55:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The question is whether the warning should be only printed if the problem
definitely occurs or only if it likely
[...]
In this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-16
14:44:56 UTC ---
The question is whether the warning should be only printed if the problem
definitely occurs or only if it likely
WRITE (*,'(f12.10)') 1.e0 ! prints
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 19:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=21355)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21355action=view)
Draft patch
Jerry, what do you think?
Note: The smallest width is actually 3 also for D and E: That's enough to
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 21:07 ---
For completeness, the current patch has failures for for following test cases.
In particular:
- Reading - here, the d == 0 does not harm (e.g. fmt_bz_bn.f).
- FMT_G: Here, the the width check is wrong (e.g.
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 01:55
---
I see this as an enhancement.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
10 matches
Mail list logo
