https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-20 19:11:59 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Aug 20 19:11:56 2011
New Revision: 177932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177932
Log:
2011-08-20 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-20 19:30:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
ToDo: For many cases one only gets a warning instead of an error right now.
r177932 turns some warnings into errors.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-07 10:12:14 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Aug 7 10:12:09 2011
New Revision: 177545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177545
Log:
2011-08-07 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-07 10:16:44 UTC ---
Note: r177545 only does some preparational stuff. It does not add any actual
checking yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-07 20:59:20 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Aug 7 20:59:16 2011
New Revision: 177550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177550
Log:
2011-08-07 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-07 21:13:12 UTC ---
r177550 correctly rejects the original test case.
ToDo: For many cases one only gets a warning instead of an error right now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04 07:41:43 UTC ---
Hi Mikael,
4.5.7.3 (type-bound procedure overriding) has:
• Either both shall be subroutines or both shall be functions having the same
result characteristics (12.3.3).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04
08:09:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
+ if (strcmp (e1-symtree-n.sym-name, e1-symtree-n.sym-name) != 0)
That can be done quicker as:
if (e1-symtree-n.sym-name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04 10:59:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
+ if (strcmp (e1-symtree-n.sym-name, e1-symtree-n.sym-name) != 0)
That can be done quicker as:
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04
11:14:36 UTC ---
If we are willing to do some simple expression comparisons, here is what I
think should be supported (most common cases):
- constants: this is the minimum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04
11:16:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
+ if (strcmp (e1-symtree-n.sym-name, e1-symtree-n.sym-name) !=
0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-03 18:36:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
A check for different ranks can be added like this:
This will reject the following variant of the original test case, which is
accepted up to now:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-03 18:53:17 UTC ---
I think in general we may also have to reject differing non-constant string
lengths (at least that's what ifort does), as in:
module world
implicit none
type :: world_1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-03 19:41:17 UTC ---
The simple constant-length example in comment #0 can be rejected by extending
the resolve.c part of the patch in comment #3 into:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-03 20:17:49 UTC ---
I wonder whether the right thing to do would be to add a general expression
comparison routine like the one below (just a rough sketch so far).
a) Do we have something like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-31 11:05:24 UTC ---
A check for different ranks can be added like this:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-30 16:23:25 UTC ---
Note: In resolve.c there is 'check_typebound_override' which should take care
of these kind of things. It already rejects overriding procedures with
different result types,
23 matches
Mail list logo
