http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Bug #: 56581
Summary: seg fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #2 from Walt Brainerd 2013-03-10
16:03:37 UTC ---
Sorry, I was trying lots of different experiments and apparently
removed the ! before attaching the file.
I put it back in and now cannot reproduce the error.
Ignore this f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #5 from Walt Brainerd 2013-03-10
19:39:42 UTC ---
I think that is exactly what they were (wrote a little
program to get rid of them).
The files were produced by OCR and then edited (not by me), so that
is all possible.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #9 from Walt Brainerd 2013-03-13
16:12:35 UTC ---
Thanks for sending me this.
Maybe I did after all provide something that will help you.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
--- Comment #3 from Walt Brainerd ---
Yes, Sounds like you have it fixed. Thanks.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:06 PM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
>
> kargl at gcc
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
character(len=:), allocatable :: c
c = "abc"
print *, "A" // c // "Z"
c = c(1:0) // c(2:)
print *, "A" // c // &quo
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Windows 10, gcc 7.0.1 20170416
If the commented versions of the USE or WRITE statements
are used, the program works fine.
The function B converts wage to a structure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
OK, but it will take me some time to cut the thing down from
the several hundred lines that do the formatting.
Not hard to do, just will take a bit to get a good example.
Thanks for looking at this.
On Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
Walt Brainerd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #6 from Walt Brainerd ---
I have added a complete program as an attachment to the bug report
(I think).
See comments in the program.
Pls let me know if there is something missing.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:27 PM, jvdelisle at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #9 from Walt Brainerd ---
Just FYI, Intel 2017 compiles 3DT'...', but it does not run correctly
(response inspired by your comments about a similar possibility :-).
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:35 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80484
--- Comment #11 from Walt Brainerd ---
Looks good. Great work.
You have done more than your share today to make the Fortran world a better
place.
Thanks!
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:32 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #11 from Walt Brainerd ---
I am not sure what you changed your mind from or to :-).
Yes, the assignment is invalid because r is real the the rhs is type B_type.
And, yes, the type of the io list item is B_type.
However, the uncomme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #12 from Walt Brainerd ---
I made a misstatement in my previous message.
gfortran 7.0.1 does not accept this.
Sorry, my "test" was not correct.
I am going to post a query to comp-fortran-90 to see what others think.
On Fri, Jun 9,
at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40671&action=edit
g_bug.f90; complete program
DTIO ICE
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 7.0.1 20170122 (exper
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40672&action=edit
g_bug2.f90; complete program
I don't see anything wrong with the USE statement, BUT .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, I forgot to remove the extraneous USE statement
which cutting down from the original code.
I am not good with this new stuff; please explain what
the syntax error is? If the PUBLIC statement is not co
nterface versions.
>
> Best regards
>
> Paul
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
> wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
> > Sorry, I forgot to remove the extra
e typebound and the explicit
> generic interface versions.
>
> Best regards
>
> Paul
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
> wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
&
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40948&action=edit
bug.f90, the file compiled as s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #1 from Walt Brainerd ---
Forgot to add:
Pls see F08 std 9.6.3(7) 2nd bullet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #3 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, when trying to cut the bug to the smallest problem,
I went too far. I will start again.
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:52 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, I cut the example down one step too many.
Please try this one. It works OK without all the stuff
related to DTIO.
BTW, I didn't mention: this is on Windows 10.
module B_write_dt_mod
implicit none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #7 from Walt Brainerd ---
I took "not processed by" to mean that there is no DT edit descriptor
corresponding to it.
But I see how this might be interpreted otherwise.
Intel agrees with me FWIW.
Maybe this is a question for J3 (or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
Walt Brainerd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Created attachment 32079
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32079&action=edit
source file gfortran_bug.f90
Sorry, I am not sure where to begin to cut this down.
I hope you can figure it o
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
I think the output should be -444.44E-03
$ cat x.f90
write(*,"(en15.2)") -.4
end
Walt@HP_Laptop /cygdrive/c/walt/Testing
$ gfortran -Wall x.f90
Walt@HP_Laptop /cygdrive/c/walt/Tes
gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
Created attachment 34744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34744&action=edit
Tried to use i as variable and construct name
gfortran exit_if.f90
exit_if.f90:3.6:
if (i>7.7) then
1
Error: Symbol at
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
$ cat f.f90
character(len=:), allocatable :: c
c = "abcde"
print *,len(c), c
c = c(2:)
print *,len(c), c
end
Walt@HP_Envy ~/Books/SV/GF08P/P05
$ gfortran --version f.f90
GNU Fortr
29 matches
Mail list logo
