This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gfortran testsuite, committed] Re: gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Tobias Schl?ter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, patch <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:12:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: [gfortran testsuite, committed] Re: gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90
- References: <email@example.com> <42A34AF5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <42A48F49.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 08:00:41PM +0200, Tobias Schl?ter wrote:
> 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?
Yes, XFAIL the testcase and open a PR. NAG's compiler also compiles
the program and it executes without a problem.