Bug 164732
| Summary: | gfortran cannot parse single-line nested arithmetic if statement | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Nate Crawford <nathan.crawford> |
| Component: | gcc4 | Assignee: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 4.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | ia64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 4.0.1-4.EL4.1 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2005-08-06 11:49:53 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
This is upstream PR17229, fixed in April. gfortran packages for RHEL4 U2 are based on 20050727 gcc-4_0-rhl-branch (which is based on 20050727 gcc-4_0-branch), so that fix is included. |
Description of problem: With some ancient, but working, fortran77 code, I ran into a little glitch. Specifically, the command (and error message): gfortran -O2 -w -ffixed-form [unimportant stuff] IF(INCX.EQ.INCY) IF(INCX-1) 5,20,60 1 Error: Unclassifiable statement in IF-clause at (1) After changing it to an if block: IF(INCX.EQ.INCY) THEN IF(INCX-1) 5,20,60 ENDIF the subroutine compiled cleanly. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gcc version 4.0.0 20041214 (Red Hat 4.0.0-0.14.EL4) How reproducible: allways Steps to Reproduce: 1.take old ugly fortran 2.compile 3. Actual results: compilation error Expected results: no compilation error Additional info: This subroutine has been compiled correctly for years with many compilers on many architectures, and is probably legal fortran77. I have not tried it with gfortran on non-IA64 machines, but I suspect the bug exists across them all. -Nate