https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #27 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Sep 29 13:19:21 2017
New Revision: 253287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-29 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/2507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #26 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Sep 29 13:15:26 2017
New Revision: 253286
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253286&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-29 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/2507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-09/msg00126.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dominiq at lps dot
ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> On the current trunk, the patch produces one failure:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/warn_argument_mismatch_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>
> Another problem is that it removes the warning for -std=le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|janus at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Please do if you can, after testing on trunk.
I can do it if Janus unassign himself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Any opinions on this?
So far 2 for, 0 against. May be the patch can be committed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #18 from Janne Blomqvist ---
(In reply to janus from comment #16)
> Any opinions on this?
+1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Any opinions on this?
It's fine for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #15 from Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Legacy code like the one in comment #11 should be allowed with -std=legacy only
(if at all).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
> AFAICT everything is fixed, but for
> comment 7 preferring an error instead of the warning. Since warnings can be
> turned into errors with -We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
No activity for more than four years. AFAICT everything is fixed, but for
comment 7 preferring an error instead of the warning. Since warnings can be
turned into errors with -Werror, I don't think thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #11 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-01-27 13:22:49 UTC ---
I actually vaguely recall why this should be a warning, and not be checked for
at runtime. This is for legacy codes using real :: a(1) instead of real ::
a(*). Something like
SU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-27
09:16:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Sorry for being 'a bit' late with comments, but IMHO this should be an error
> and not just a warning, because
>
> 2) Other compilers reject it (so we can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
12:41:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> actually, I think this is a kind of error that should be caught at run-time
> with -fcheck=arguments (not to say bounds). I guess that's not so easy to
> imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-01-25 12:12:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Reopening..
actually, I think this is a kind of error that should be caught at run-time
with -fcheck=arguments (not to say bounds). I guess that's not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 09:42 ---
I believe this is fixed by PR30940.
The first example gives:
Warnung: Actual argument contains too few elements for dummy argument 'i' (4/6)
at (1)
The second example:
Warnung: Character length of actual argument sh
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-04 08:55 ---
Note: Only the string length problem is fixed; the array storage extend still
needs to be fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-04 08:54 ---
Subject: Bug 25071
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 4 07:54:06 2007
New Revision: 124411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124411
Log:
2007-05-04 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fort
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-05-03 20:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR25071
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00186.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-19 16:16 ---
Analogously for character lengths:
program test
character(len=10) :: x
call foo(x)
write(*,*) 'X=',x
contains
subroutine foo(y)
character(len=20) ::
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 19:48
---
## g95 ##
In file foo.f90:2
CALL TST(I)
1
Error: Array argument at (1) is smaller than the dummy size
## Intel ##
fortcom: Error: foo.f90, line 2: The storage extent of the dummy argument
exceeds that o
28 matches
Mail list logo
