--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 21:54
---
Subject: Bug 38291
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 6 21:53:11 2008
New Revision: 142528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142528
Log:
2008-12-06 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 04:19
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 04:19
---
Subject: Bug 38291
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 6 04:17:31 2008
New Revision: 142516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142516
Log:
2008-12-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 04:15
---
Subject: Bug 38291
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 6 04:13:34 2008
New Revision: 142515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142515
Log:
2008-12-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-05 05:39
---
The alternating error was an artefact of the test case and not part of the bug.
I have submitted a fixed patch that eliminates the incorrect EOF error. I
will commit soon.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 05:32
---
I am holding off on committing the patch.
With this test case I have found a nasty problem:
! { dg-do run }
! PR38291 Rejects I/O with POS= if FMT=*
character(15) :: sAccess
character(1) :: instr
open(50, access
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 05:35
---
Patch submitted. There is ABI breakage with 4.3 in that patch I noticed after
I submitted, so I am now testing some tweaks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38291
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:40 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > > So the read statement by itself is invalid.
> > ???
>
> I was testing with and without the open statement in the test case and saw
> that we were not catching that error either.
Ah, yo
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:32
---
> So the read statement by itself is invalid.
???
I was testing with and without the open statement in the test case and saw that
we were not catching that error either. Regardless, the problem is that I was
usi
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 06:44 ---
> read( 50, *, pos = 1 )
> is valid only if the unit has been connected for STREAM access.
Well, (a) I don't see how this can be tested at compile time and (b) I thought
that
open(50,access='stream')
is doing so.
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 03:55
---
read( 50, *, pos = 1 )
is valid only if the unit has been connected for STREAM access. F2003
"9.5.1.10POS= specifier in a data transfer statement
The POS= specifier specifies the file position in file stora
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-27 14:20
---
I am on it.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
12 matches
Mail list logo
