From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9027 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2007 20:13:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 8672 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2007 20:13:26 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070309201326.8671.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libfortran/31099] [4.3/4.2 regression] Runtime error on legal code using RECL In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00778.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2007-03-09 20:13 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3/4.2 regression] Runtime error on legal code using RECL > I believe I have a fix. I am testing now. We were not initializing a few > things when we have a record length given. > > Index: io/open.c > =================================================================== > --- io/open.c (revision 122529) > +++ io/open.c (working copy) > @@ -437,6 +437,8 @@ new_unit (st_parameter_open *opp, gfc_un > { > u->flags.has_recl = 1; > u->recl = opp->recl_in; > + u->recl_subrecord = u->recl; > + u->bytes_left = u->recl; > } > else > { This looks good. Thanks, Jerry, for picking up on this so fast. I had been sort of wondering wether I had introduced any regressions with my subrecord patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31099