On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 06:51:50PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> >
> > It is valid syntax because of
> >
> > "An empty sequence forms a zero-sized rank-one array."
> >
> > It seems that J3 saw the error in their ways as (/ /) is clearly
> > an empty array constructor, and fixed the po
>
> It is valid syntax because of
>
> "An empty sequence forms a zero-sized rank-one array."
>
> It seems that J3 saw the error in their ways as (/ /) is clearly
> an empty array constructor, and fixed the possibility of creating
> a typeless zero-sized, rank-one array.
This is exactly the po
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 05:56:12PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> > (/ /) is valid Fortran 95 syntax
> > ...
> >
> > program foo
> > call bar((/ /))
> > end program foo
> >
> > % gfc -c -std=f95 foo.f90
> > foo.f90:2:17:
> >
> >call bar((/ /))
> > 1
> > Error: Empt
> (/ /) is valid Fortran 95 syntax
> ...
>
> program foo
> call bar((/ /))
> end program foo
>
> % gfc -c -std=f95 foo.f90
> foo.f90:2:17:
>
>call bar((/ /))
> 1
> Error: Empty array constructor at (1) is not allowed
>
> The above error is correct.
Well the two asserti
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 12:28:12PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should
> it be back ported to the gcc-5 branch?
> >>>
> >>> No and No.
> >
>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it
be back ported to the gcc-5 branch?
>>>
>>> No and No.
> Le 7 avr. 2016 à 15:59, Steve Kargl a
> écrit :
>
> The latter is obvious as th
The latter is obvious as this "fixes" neither a regression
nor documentation. For the former, see Fortran 95, section 4.5.
--
steve
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 07:51:14AM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Could you please elaborate.
>
> Dominique
>
> > Le 7 avr. 2016 à 07:48, Steve Kargl a
>
Could you please elaborate.
Dominique
> Le 7 avr. 2016 à 07:48, Steve Kargl a
> écrit :
>
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>> Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be
>> back ported to the gcc-5 branch?
>
> No and No.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be
> back ported to the gcc-5 branch?
No and No.
--
Steve
Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be
back ported to the gcc-5 branch?
TIA
Dominique
Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (revision 234788)
+++ gcc/fortran/ChangeLo
10 matches
Mail list logo