From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-450555-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28507 invoked by alias); 5 May 2014 09:16:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28467 invoked by uid 48); 5 May 2014 09:16:14 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/61049] [4.9/4.10 Regression] NIST test FM906 fails
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 09:16:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61049-4-AfsXTe5Z4f@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61049-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61049-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61049

--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
The following patch also fixes this PR (regtested and NIST suite)

--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/list_read.c    2014-04-27 00:39:19.000000000 +0200
+++ libgfortran/io/list_read.c    2014-05-05 09:53:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ list_formatted_read_scalar (st_parameter
           && dtp->u.p.current_unit->decimal_status == DECIMAL_POINT))
         {
           dtp->u.p.comma_flag = 1;
+          eat_separator (dtp);
           goto cleanup;
         }


I have no opinion about which patch is better, i.e., I don't have any test
which succeeds with one patch, but fails with the other.