This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/14957] [gfortran] testsuite issues
- From: "tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 3 Jun 2004 19:15:27 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/14957] [gfortran] testsuite issues
- References: <20040414171503.14957.jv244@cam.ac.uk>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-03 19:15 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> incorrect equivalence:
> intrinsic_fraction_exponent.f90
> intrinsic_set_exponent.f90
Indeed, this could be achieved with TRANSFER instead. We don't seem to enforce
all restrictions on EQUIVALENCE, we might want to enforce them but allow a way
out via a language extension.
The problem is:
INTEGER I
REAL R
EQUIVALENCE (R,I) ! not allowed, can only equivalence same basic type
> arguments of different kind to max:
> intrinsic_minmax.f90
This is a language extension. See the code in check.c:check_rest(). This
shouldn't pass with -pedantic.
> syntax error (subroutine missing?):
> stack_varsize.f90
Test passes here. Supposedly it's been fixed in the meantime.
> non-standard intrinsic (dcmplx):
> cmplx.f90
A language extension.
> incorrect length of character variables passed:
> intrinisic_index.f90
> intrinisic_trim.f90
True, this is a quality of implementation issue we should keep track of.
> f95:
> st_function.f90, line 32: Subobject of constant not allowed in statement
> function
Do you have a quote from the standard to back this? I couldn't find one.
> several instances where e.g. an integer is passed to a subroutine expecting a
> real. In principle that is illegal (but very common, indeed).
Does it warn with -pedantic? It should.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14957