Thanks, as you point out all the test needs to do is verify that that a
variable with an AUTOMATIC attribute can be used in an EQUIVALENCE and
and that the items in the EQUIVALENCE are on the stack by using in a
recursive routine.
I've created a patch to replace the existing test cases and hav
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 10:33:26PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 14 2019, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> > * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90: New test.
>
> This test fails everywhere.
Yes, and _2 on i686-linux at -O0.
To me both testcases are undefined behavior.
E.g. the first one has:
On Aug 14 2019, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90: New test.
This test fails everywhere.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
On 14/08/2019 18:10, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/14/19 2:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
I now have commit access.
gcc/fortran
Jeff Law
Mark Eggleston
* gfortran.h: Add gfc_check_conflict declaration.
* symbol.c (check_conflict): Rename cfg_check_conflict and remove
static.
On 8/14/19 2:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> I now have commit access.
>
> gcc/fortran
>
> Jeff Law
> Mark Eggleston
>
> * gfortran.h: Add gfc_check_conflict declaration.
> * symbol.c (check_conflict): Rename cfg_check_conflict and remove
> static.
> * symbol.c (cfg_chec
I now have commit access.
gcc/fortran
Jeff Law
Mark Eggleston
* gfortran.h: Add gfc_check_conflict declaration.
* symbol.c (check_conflict): Rename cfg_check_conflict and remove
static.
* symbol.c (cfg_check_conflict): Remove automatic in equivalence
conflict check
On 7/1/19 3:35 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> On 25/06/2019 14:17, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>>
>> On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM
Apologies typo in ChangeLog.
On 08/07/2019 14:51, Mark Eggleston wrote:
**ping**
On 01/07/2019 10:35, Mark Eggleston wrote:
On 25/06/2019 14:17, Mark Eggleston wrote:
On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -070
**ping**
On 01/07/2019 10:35, Mark Eggleston wrote:
On 25/06/2019 14:17, Mark Eggleston wrote:
On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Egg
On 25/06/2019 14:17, Mark Eggleston wrote:
On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC
On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
EQUIVALENCE s
On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
> Steve Kargl wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>>> Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
>>> EQUIVALENCE statement. However its coun
On 24/06/2019 09:19, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
EQUIVALENCE statement. However its counterpart, ST
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> > Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
> > EQUIVALENCE statement. However its counterpart, STATIC, can be used in
> > an EQUIVALENCE stateme
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
> EQUIVALENCE statement. However its counterpart, STATIC, can be used in
> an EQUIVALENCE statement.
>
> Where there is a clear conflict in the attributes of va
Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
EQUIVALENCE statement. However its counterpart, STATIC, can be used in
an EQUIVALENCE statement.
Where there is a clear conflict in the attributes of variables in an
EQUIVALENCE statement an error message will be issued as i
16 matches
Mail list logo