This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gfortran testsuite, committed] Re: gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90
- From: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, patch <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:00:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [gfortran testsuite, committed] Re: gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <42A34AF5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>>Does this cure the problem?
> No, it does not for me,
I tried the testcase with ifc (Intel(R) Fortran Compiler for 32-bit
applications, Version 8.1 Build 20040803) and with Sun's f95 (f90: Sun
Fortran 95 8.0 Patch 115984-02 2004/11/03) both with and without optimization,
and it didn't fail. I've reviewed the testcase, and I'm sure that it
shouldn't abort and doesn't invoke undefined behavior any longer.
Thus I believe the testcase exposes a pre-existing bug in gfortran. What
should we do? XFAIL the testcase and open a PR?