From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25476 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2007 15:54:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 24908 invoked by uid 48); 26 Mar 2007 15:54:08 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070326155408.24907.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libfortran/31052] Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "spark at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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/msg02463.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #33 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 16:54 ------- (In reply to comment #31) > Here is a new patch. I need someone to test on SPEC. It is very simple. > > Index: transfer.c > =================================================================== > *** transfer.c (revision 123205) > --- transfer.c (working copy) > *************** next_record_r (st_parameter_dt *dtp) > *** 2228,2234 **** > break; > } > > ! if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->flags.access == ACCESS_SEQUENTIAL) > test_endfile (dtp->u.p.current_unit); > } > > --- 2228,2235 ---- > break; > } > > ! if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->flags.access == ACCESS_SEQUENTIAL > ! && !dtp->u.p.namelist_mode) > test_endfile (dtp->u.p.current_unit); > } This patch doesn't break 200.sixtrack (when added on top of the Jerry's previous patch above). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31052