https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #13)
> Now, for the G77 intrinsics, we don't need to follow the standard and can do
> whatever we want. Though I think the general approach above is good for G77
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #15 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #13)
> Now, for the G77 intrinsics, we don't need to follow the standard and can do
> whatever we want. Though I think the general approach above is good for G77
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #12 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9)
> An easy fix to this would be to disallow kind=2 integer as an argument
> during checking.
Since SIGNAL is a GNU extension, we are at liberty what to allow.
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> Is there anything left to fix?
>
> A dump with recent trunk shows
>
>integer(kind=4) D.3468;
>
> D.3468 = (integer(kind=4)) status2;
> _gfortran_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-06 05:03
---
An easy fix to this would be to disallow kind=2 integer as an argument during
checking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 05:49
---
I will give this a shot . The mention of optional dummy arguments is a place I
have been.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-13 19:13 ---
Completely lost track due to real life interference. If anyone wants to pick up
the patch, be my guest. Unassigning myself for now.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 06:40 ---
> patch ping?
Still working on this (that is, shunning it for the work involved). It does not
yet work correctly with actual arguments that are optional dummy arguments.
Thanks for the reminder :)
--
http://g
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-04 06:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Bug number PR29651
>
> 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/msg02108.html
>
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-05-30 22:40 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29651
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/msg02108.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-11 18:54 ---
Taking care of this one as the solution is probably the same as with ALARM
(PR30947).
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 12:54 ---
> This is a useful improvement to an enhancement, so I have marked it as
> "enhancement".
I'd call "improvement to an enhancement" an euphemism as it produces wrong code
(uninitialized variables), albeit it is not ea
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 05:36 ---
This is a useful improvement to an enhancement, so I have marked it as
"enhancement".
Confirmed.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
17 matches
Mail list logo
