--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 20:50 ---
Fixed on trunk I hope!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 19:22 ---
Subject: Bug 33541
Author: pault
Date: Tue Nov 27 19:21:52 2007
New Revision: 130471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130471
Log:
2007-11-27 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think the failures in test3 are ok. Example program:
Yes, you are right. You and Dominique are correct about test2. The odd thing
is that there is a test for this in the testsuite alre
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-24 12:20 ---
I think the failures in test3 are ok. Example program:
module m
integer :: a = 10
end module m
program p
integer :: a
a = 5
call s()
contains
subroutine s()
use m, local1 => a
use m
print *, local
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-24 12:09 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The following test now fails:
That test passes (0 0 0) with gfortran (w/o patch) and g95.
With ifort, NAG f95, openf95 and sunf95 it fails with "0 0 2".
And with the patched gfortran it fa
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-11-24 11:04 ---
The following test now fails:
! { dg-do run }
! A test to prove that, a sub-routine, variables from the module takes
! precedence in case of name conflict with local entities.
! Reference Fortran 95 standard documen
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-24 10:17 ---
Subject: Bug 33541
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 24 10:17:26 2007
New Revision: 130395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130395
Log:
2007-11-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-22 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33541
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/2007-11/msg01166.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-19 15:10 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Off to generics and operators now!
Ahhh... I have run into a serious problem here. It transpires that renaming is
not accomplished for generic interfaces by keeping the use-name symbol with
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> Bother, the patch causes some regressions (interface_[3-5].f90)...
> Paul
These were easily fixed - also nested_modules_1.f90 was not standard compliant
in this re
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:16 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Bother, the patch causes some regressions (interface_[3-5].f90)...
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33541
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 09:46 ---
The patch below fixes the reported bug. I am going to check to see what needs
to be done to extend this to generic interfaces and operators.
Paul
Index: gcc/fortran/module.c
=
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-02 08:51 ---
confirmed - Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|una
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-24 08:52 ---
Post script: Fortran 95 contains the same in 11.3.2; the only difference is
that Fortran 2003 talks also about defined-operators.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33541
14 matches
Mail list logo
