* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2006-01-07 0:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-07 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 00:16 -------
*** Bug 25705 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |malitzke at metronets dot
| |com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-01-07 0:16 ` [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 21:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:32 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:30 -------
Created an attachment (id=10595)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10595&action=view)
allow jumping into blocks in legacy mode
Something like this is probably all that's needed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-01-07 0:16 ` [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 21:32 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:33 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:32 -------
(From update of attachment 10595)
Index: resolve.c
===================================================================
--- resolve.c (revision 109449)
+++ resolve.c (working copy)
@@ -3579,9 +3579,12 @@ resolve_branch (gfc_st_label * label, gf
if (found == NULL)
{
- /* still nothing, so illegal. */
- gfc_error_now ("Label at %L is not in the same block as the "
- "GOTO statement at %L", &lp->where, &code->loc);
+ /* Still nothing, so strictly illegal. However, this kind of
+ what is now considered gross coding style was common in the
+ past. So allow it for legacy code. */
+ gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_LEGACY,
+ "Label at %L is not in the same block as the "
+ "GOTO statement at %L", &lp->where, &code->loc);
return;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 21:32 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 21:33 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:42 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:33 -------
(From update of attachment 10595)
See comment #6
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #10595|0 |1
is obsolete| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 21:33 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 21:42 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:42 -------
No, this is not sufficient, because you'll still need to find the label, unless
we have some gross code duplication that I'm not aware of. What needs to be
done is adding a search through the entire program unit if no matching label is
found and GFC_STD_LEGACY is allowed. Since this will take much longer than the
original parent block only search, we should really only do this, if need be.
I think we also have a bug about slow code with lots of jumps, so it might
probably be worthwhile to overhaul this whole thing, to allow searching for
statement labels without having to traverse the gfc_code tree.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 21:42 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 21:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 21:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:45 -------
Actually we already know for sure that the label exists and that it is a valid
jump target. From resolve_branch:
/* Step one: is this a valid branching target? */
if (lp->defined == ST_LABEL_UNKNOWN)
{
gfc_error ("Label %d referenced at %L is never defined", lp->value,
&lp->where);
return;
}
if (lp->defined != ST_LABEL_TARGET)
{
gfc_error ("Statement at %L is not a valid branch target statement "
"for the branch statement at %L", &lp->where, &code->loc);
return;
}
/* Step two: make sure this branch is not a branch to itself ;-) */
if (code->here == label)
{
gfc_warning ("Branch at %L causes an infinite loop", &code->loc);
return;
}
/* Step three: Try to find the label in the parse tree. To do this,
we traverse the tree block-by-block: first the block that
contains this GOTO, then the block that it is nested in, etc. We
can ignore other blocks because branching into another block is
not allowed. */
Step three is what we can skip if we want to allow this kind of invalid jumping
around through a program unit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 21:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 21:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 22:16 ` Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
` (13 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:54 -------
Note that this code in resolve_branch is only slow for deeply nested programs
with many gotos. The code in resolve_branch is linear in the size of the
program, but if your program has many GOTO statements, say of the same order of
magnitude as the size of the program, then you effectively get quadratic
behavior in resolve_namespace.
I had the following idea to speed things up:
1. attach to each block a bitmap of statement labels defined in that block
2. compute a closure over the blocks tree to obtain a bitmap of all statement
labels reachable from that block
3. in resolve_branch, only look at that bitmap.
You would only have to do 2. once for each program unit. The bitmap check
would be cheap obviously. You'd never have to walk the statements in
resolve_branch, so you would make the quadratic behavior go away.
Unfortunately I've never found the time to try to implement this idea.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 21:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 22:16 ` Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
2006-01-08 22:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de @ 2006-01-08 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2006-01-08 22:16 -------
Subject: Re: Jumping into blocks gives error rather than
warning
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 21:45 -------
> Actually we already know for sure that the label exists and that it is a valid
> jump target. From resolve_branch:
Indeed, I had missed that we already keep track of all existing labels when
parsing via the code in gfc_get_st_label. I'll give your code a spin and
submit it, when it passes testing. Ok?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 22:16 ` Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
@ 2006-01-08 22:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-08 22:53 ` Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-08 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 22:23 -------
Yes please.
And what do you think of the other idea to speed things up?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 22:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-08 22:53 ` Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
2006-01-09 16:46 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de @ 2006-01-08 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2006-01-08 22:53 -------
Subject: Re: Jumping into blocks gives error rather than
warning
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 22:23 -------
> Yes please.
>
> And what do you think of the other idea to speed things up?
I know nothing about bitmaps :-) I've just finished up coding a version which
puts them into a balanced binary tree, this should fix one quadratic
bottleneck.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-08 22:53 ` Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
@ 2006-01-09 16:46 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-09 16:50 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-09 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 16:46 -------
Coming to think of it, I think that while your speedup would work, it would
probably be easier and even faster if we kept track of the enclosing blocks
while building the blocks and labels, so that the data structure would look
something like this:
gfc_st_label *label -> gfc_code *block -> gfc_code *enclosing_block ...
or maybe
gfc_st_label *label -> gfc_code *statement -> gfc_code *block
-> gfc_code *enclosing_block ...
(where label is a statement label, statement the statement its attached to,
block the block containing the statement [this would e.g. be an if], etc.)
Then the time taken by the validation of the blocks would still scale linearly
with the number of blocks, but the length of the blocks would no longer play a
role, leaving us with linear behavior.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-09 16:46 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-09 16:50 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-09 18:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-09 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 16:50 -------
Forgot to say: the validity check would then look like:
for (b = code->block: b != NULL; b = b->enclosing_block)
if (b == label->block)
/* valid GOTO */
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-09 16:50 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-09 18:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-09 18:56 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-09 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 18:35 -------
The idea of comment #14 and #15 looks better than mine, yes.
Which bug is the slowness bug btw? We should really be discussing solutions
for that bug in the audit trail of that bug instead of this one ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-09 18:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-09 18:56 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-14 19:03 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-09 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 18:56 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> The idea of comment #14 and #15 looks better than mine, yes.
I'll continue what I've started, then.
> Which bug is the slowness bug btw? We should really be discussing solutions
> for that bug in the audit trail of that bug instead of this one ;-)
PR18937. I'll have it point to the discussion here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-09 18:56 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-14 19:03 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-18 20:54 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-14 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-30 18:48:24 |2006-01-14 19:03:09
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-14 19:03 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-18 20:54 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-18 21:08 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-18 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 20:54 -------
Subject: Bug 18540
Author: tobi
Date: Wed Jan 18 20:54:49 2006
New Revision: 109914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109914
Log:
PR fortran/18540
PR fortran/18937
* gfortran.h (BBT_HEADER): Move definition up.
(gfc_st_label): Add BBT_HEADER, remove 'prev' and 'next'.
* io.c (format_asterisk): Adapt initializer.
* resolve.c (resolve_branch): Allow FORTRAN 66 cross-block GOTOs
as extension.
* symbol.c (compare_st_labels): New function.
(gfc_free_st_label, free_st_labels, gfc_get_st_label): Convert to
using balanced binary tree.
* decl.c (match_char_length, gfc_match_old_kind_spec): Do away
with 'cnt'.
(warn_unused_label): Adapt to binary tree.
* match.c (gfc_match_small_literal_int): Only set cnt if non-NULL.
* primary.c (match_kind_param): Do away with cnt.
Also converted the ChangeLog to use latin1 characters.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
trunk/gcc/fortran/io.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/match.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/primary.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-18 20:54 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-18 21:08 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-25 22:34 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-18 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 21:08 -------
Fixed on the mainline. I will backport the cross-jumping part to 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-18 21:08 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-25 22:34 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-25 23:38 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-25 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-25 22:34 -------
Subject: Bug 18540
Author: tobi
Date: Wed Jan 25 22:34:17 2006
New Revision: 110228
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110228
Log:
PR fortran/18540
* gfortran.dg/goto_1.f: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goto_1.f
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-25 22:34 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-25 23:38 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-26 10:15 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 20:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-25 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-25 23:38 -------
Subject: Bug 18540
Author: tobi
Date: Wed Jan 25 23:38:34 2006
New Revision: 110232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110232
Log:
backport from r109914
fortran/
PR fortran/18540
* resolve.c (resolve_branch): Allow FORTRAN 66 cross-block GOTOs
as extension.
testsuite/
PR fortran/18540
* gfortran.dg/goto_1.f: New.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goto_1.f
- copied unchanged from r110228, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goto_1.f
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-25 23:38 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-26 10:15 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 20:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-26 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-26 10:14 -------
Fixed on trunk and 4.1.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
[not found] <bug-18540-9236@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-26 10:15 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-28 20:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-28 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread