https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Dec 22 18:09:19 2018
New Revision: 267354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267354&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-21 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88169
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Dec 22 17:53:00 2018
New Revision: 267353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-21 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88169
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Dec 22 17:26:12 2018
New Revision: 267351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-21 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88169
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #9)
> Actually I think the usage in comment 8 is an intentional extension. There
> is a test in the dg test suite that does exactly this if I remember
> corre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #10 from Neil Carlson ---
Also a remark about the output of comment 7 just in case someone is thinking it
ought to say "&BAR" (like I was expecting/hoping when I started experimenting
with the original example). 13.11.3.1 says
1 I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
Actually I think the usage in comment 8 is an intentional extension. There is a
test in the dg test suite that does exactly this if I remember correctly. The
test was namelist_use.f90. I was told that gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As expected, the following invalid code via C8102 in F2018
compiles and executes
module foo_nml
implicit none
real :: x
namelist /foo/ x
end module
program main
use foo_nml
implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> (In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #5)
> > Stated a bit more clearly, the question is, whether in
> >
> > The namelist-group-name shall not be a name acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #5)
> Stated a bit more clearly, the question is, whether in
>
> The namelist-group-name shall not be a name accessed by use association.
>
> the name (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #5 from Neil Carlson ---
Stated a bit more clearly, the question is, whether in
The namelist-group-name shall not be a name accessed by use association.
the name (in the scope of the declaration) is accessed by use association,
or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
I think the intent of
C8102 (R868) The namelist-group-name shall not be a name accessed by use
association.
is to say you can't define a namelist with a name accessed by use association.
That seems to fit be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Fortran 95 contains
>
> NOTE 11.8
>
> The constraints in sections 5.5.1, 5.5.2, and 5.4 prohibit the local-name
> from appearing as a common-block-object in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88169
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=88169
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
16 matches
Mail list logo