From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11581 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2011 18:15:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 11564 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2011 18:15:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:15:06 +0000 From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libfortran/50105] [4.6/4.7 Regression] I/O with g6.5 - wrong number of "**" shown Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:17:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.2 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Priority Severity Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2011-08/txt/msg01689.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105 Tobias Burnus changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P5 Severity|normal |minor --- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-19 18:14:46 UTC --- For completeness: FORTRAN 77 had a similar wording at http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf-13.html#sh-13.5.9 http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf-13.html#sh-13.5.9.2.3 Bill is not convinced about Malcolm's answer: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2011-August/004606.html If I read it correctly, Bill thinks that one can read the standard such that "** " is correct, but thinks that the standard is ambiguous and also allows "******" which - according to his count - most compilers do and a user would expect. I think we will have at the end an interpretation request - thus, one might leave this item open until after the J3 meeting or better after the balloting of the J3 meeting edits. The next meeting is October 10-14, 2011.