public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
@ 2007-07-20 8:13 jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 8:20 ` [Bug fortran/32834] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2007-07-20 8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
This meta-bug tries to list all rejects-valid and ice-on-valid-code that can be
triggered with standard Fortran 95 conforming code, are not arch specific, and
can not reasonably be called a limit of the compiler. In full agreement with
pault, I think fixing these should be a priority.
--
Summary: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
2007-07-20 8:13 [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2007-07-20 8:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 12:25 ` [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2007-07-20 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-20 08:20 -------
only 1 open since 2005, 2 open since 2006, others are 2007.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
2007-07-20 8:13 [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 8:20 ` [Bug fortran/32834] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2007-07-20 12:25 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-20 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-20 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |meta-bug
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-07-20 12:25:13
date| |
Summary|[Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'- |[Meta-bug] 'Fortran 95'-only
|only failures |failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
2007-07-20 8:13 [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 8:20 ` [Bug fortran/32834] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 12:25 ` [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-20 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-20 17:03 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 17:17 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-20 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-20 16:42 -------
Should we open another PR for wrong-code errors?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
2007-07-20 8:13 [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-20 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-20 17:03 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 17:17 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2007-07-20 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-20 17:02 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Should we open another PR for wrong-code errors?
no, I overlooked that keyword, and they belong to this category (though I'll
again ignore arch specific ones). I'll add them to the list shortly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] 'Fortran 95'-only failures
2007-07-20 8:13 [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-20 17:03 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2007-07-20 17:17 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2007-07-20 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-20 17:17 -------
from the 19 wrong code bugs I've only retained 8 that I judged as user visible,
F95, and triggered without additional options.
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |30625, 31205, 31211, 31487,
| |31608
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-20 17:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-20 8:13 [Bug fortran/32834] New: [Meta-bugs] 'Fortran 95'-only failures jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 8:20 ` [Bug fortran/32834] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 12:25 ` [Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-20 16:42 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-20 17:03 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2007-07-20 17:17 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).