http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
Bug 25104 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-09-16 13:03 ---
The test in comment #0 now gives (with/without -std=g95)
pr25104.f90:3.5:
CASE(MAXLOC(K,1))
1
Error: transformational intrinsic 'maxloc' at (1) is not permitted in an
initialization expression
for 4.4.4, 4.5.
--- Comment #19 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 15:07
---
Unassigning myself.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 17:33 ---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jun 7 17:33:34 2009
New Revision: 148250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148250
Log:
2009-06-07 Daniel Franke
PR fortran/25104
--- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 16:35 ---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jun 7 16:35:06 2009
New Revision: 148249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148249
Log:
2009-06-07 Daniel Franke
PR fortran/25104
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 11:53 ---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jun 7 11:53:21 2009
New Revision: 148243
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148243
Log:
2009-06-07 Daniel Franke
PR fortran/25104
--- Comment #15 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 08:33
---
> Could the patches in comments #11 to #13 be applied to trunk too?
They can and will, but there are at least two more coming and I want to have
and test them together before moving them over to trunk.
--
htt
--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-04-10 22:33 ---
Could the patches in comments #11 to #13 be applied to trunk too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-10 14:04
---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: dfranke
Date: Fri Apr 10 14:04:16 2009
New Revision: 145907
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145907
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2009-04-10 Daniel Franke
PR fortr
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-05 20:40
---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: dfranke
Date: Sun Apr 5 20:40:13 2009
New Revision: 145573
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145573
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2009-04-05 Daniel Franke
PR fortr
--- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 20:02
---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: dfranke
Date: Tue Mar 31 20:01:51 2009
New Revision: 145369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145369
Log:
gcc/fortran/:
2009-03-31 Daniel Franke
PR fortr
--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-23 20:38
---
Commit shown in comment #9 restores the situation as described in comment #8,
no further development yet.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-23 20:35 ---
Subject: Bug 25104
Author: dfranke
Date: Mon Jul 23 20:35:03 2007
New Revision: 126858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126858
Log:
gcc/fortran:
2007-07-23 Daniel Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-03 18:29 ---
change the keyword, as the error is now generated for std=f95 but the code is
rejected for std=f2003
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-06-06 13:21 ---
If someone acts on FX's suggestion, Bug 32035 might also be tackeled at the
same time...
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-19 18:21
---
Paul Thomas proposed a patch that fixes the F95 problem. We still need to write
simplification routines to enable such code (which is valid F2003) to compile
with gfortran. I don't have time for that right now.
19 matches
Mail list logo
