https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #12)
snip
>
> It seems to me that what is true for an explicit save is true for an
> implicit one too and that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #12)
> Paul, getting back to this one? At first glance seems not overly much work
> left for the remaining case.
Hi Juergen,
I am in the midst of a triage of my assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, getting back to this one? At first glance seems not overly much work left
for the remaining case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10)
> I think inside the logical function (in the local scope) the length of s has
> to be printed as the value of the argument x, so 1 and 2, with or without
> the 'sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I think inside the logical function (in the local scope) the length of s has to
be printed as the value of the argument x, so 1 and 2, with or without the
'save' attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #0)
> The following code shows allocatable character does not work as it should:
>
>call g(1)
> contains
> subroutine g(x)
> integer :: x
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Fixed on trunk. It only took 4 years :-(
What are you up to these days, FX?
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 17 11:22:27 2018
New Revision: 264365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/64120
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Of course you'll get errors with 4.5.4 and 4.4.7. Support
> for deferred parameter type was added in 4.6.
If I am not mistaken, the problem with this PR is allocatable scalars and not
deferred para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
16 matches
Mail list logo
