--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 16:49
---
Subject: Bug 28339
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jul 28 16:48:58 2006
New Revision: 115799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115799
Log:
2006-07-28 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 16:47
---
Subject: Bug 28339
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jul 28 16:46:57 2006
New Revision: 115798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115798
Log:
2006-07-28 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 14:56
---
Lately, unless someone requests, I have not been committing to 4.1 branch.
However, since you asked, I will gladly do so. BTW Thanks for the bug reports.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28339
--- Comment #8 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-07-28 10:16 ---
> Resolution: FIXED
> Fixed on 4.2
What about 4.1.x?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28339
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-22 06:05
---
Fixed on 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-22 03:18
---
Subject: Bug 28339
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jul 22 03:18:33 2006
New Revision: 115671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115671
Log:
2006-07-21 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-22 03:14
---
Subject: Bug 28339
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jul 22 03:14:27 2006
New Revision: 115670
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115670
Log:
2006-07-21 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-07-20 04:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28339
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/2006-07/msg00841.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 05:32
---
Well, I have found the problem here, but still need to formulate the solution.
For internal units, if the bytes left in a record is zero we break out of the
next_record_w function. Not a good thing.
--
http
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P1
http:/
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-12 01:53
---
This is curious. I can confirm the behavior on my system here. If the first
record is made one character less, "1234567", it appears to give a clean
result.
I will have to think about this one a little more. I
--- Comment #1 from mathewc at nag dot co dot uk 2006-07-11 14:10 ---
Apologies, as I should have added
%gfortran -v
%Using built-in specs.
%Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
%Configured with: ./configure --enable-languages=c,fortran
%--prefix=/opt/gfortran/irun : (reconfigured) ./config
12 matches
Mail list logo
