[Bug fortran/95647] operator(.eq.) and operator(==) treated differently

2021-02-08 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647 --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle --- Oops, that what I get for doing 16 things at once. sorry.

[Bug fortran/95647] operator(.eq.) and operator(==) treated differently

2021-02-07 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647 --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #6) > (In reply to Bill Long from comment #5) > > Is this fixed in a release version of GCC? > > Submitting patch for approval and will backport as the fix is simple.

[Bug fortran/95647] operator(.eq.) and operator(==) treated differently

2021-02-07 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug libfortran/98825] Unexpected behavior of FORTRAN FORMAT expressions when suppressing new line with '$'

2021-01-31 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- The folowing patch fixes this and regression tests OK. diff --git a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c b/libgfortran/io/transfer.c index 8ab0583dd55..27bee9d4e01 100644 --- a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c +++

[Bug libfortran/98825] Unexpected behavior of FORTRAN FORMAT expressions when suppressing new line with '$'

2021-01-30 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825 --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle --- I agree with your comment #7

[Bug libfortran/98825] Unexpected behavior of FORTRAN FORMAT expressions when suppressing new line with '$'

2021-01-29 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825 --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle --- I found the DEC F77 reference. I wanted to capture this somewhere for future reference: o MESSAGE: Extension to FORTRAN-77: nonstandard FORMAT statement item EXPLANATION: The following

[Bug libfortran/98825] Unexpected behavior of FORTRAN FORMAT expressions when suppressing new line with '$'

2021-01-26 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug fortran/95644] [F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module

2021-01-22 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

2021-01-01 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- Patch regresses several test cases.

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

2021-01-01 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug fortran/97063] [ MATMUL intrinsic] The value of result is wrong when vector (step size is negative) * matrix

2020-09-18 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug fortran/89219] ICE with derived type I/O

2020-09-13 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89219 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug fortran/97037] ICE on user-defined derived-type output of an intermediate ancestor type

2020-09-13 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97037 --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle --- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89219

[Bug fortran/97037] ICE on user-defined derived-type output of an intermediate ancestor type

2020-09-13 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97037 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net

[Bug libfortran/97017] New: The function determine_precision is called twice for each formatted real write

2020-09-10 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libfortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jvdelisle at charter dot net Target Milestone: --- I discovered this while working on the EX formattting feature. The determine_precision function is called

[Bug libfortran/93727] Fortran 2018: EX edit descriptor

2020-08-29 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93727 --- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- An Update. I have the front end and runtime parsing for OUTPUT done and am now looking at the actual implementation. We have the printf series of functions available and can use the %A format

[Bug libfortran/93727] Fortran 2018: EX edit descriptor

2020-08-14 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93727 --- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- Interesting language if not sort of weird: "exp is a binary exponent expressed as a decimal integer" I am in early stages of choosing how to do this.

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

2020-08-02 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 --- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #16) > The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : > Paul, I see you got the format just right. I stumbled on that part and then decided

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

2020-07-28 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 --- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- (In reply to kargl from comment #10) ---snip--- > Thanks for testing. Does the patch that follows fix the regressions? > gfortran treats components and type bound procedures separately.

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

2020-07-28 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug fortran/96320] gfortran 8-10 shape mismatch in assumed-length dummy argument character array

2020-07-26 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug fortran/93733] F2008: G0.d output editing for integer/logical/character data

2020-07-24 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug fortran/96255] [F2018] Implement optional type spec for index in DO CONCURRENT

2020-07-21 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255 --- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > This issue depends on the fix for FORALL. In gfc_match_do in the concurrent > section, one gets to > > m = match_forall_header (, ); &

[Bug fortran/96255] [F2018] Implement optional type spec for index in DO CONCURRENT

2020-07-21 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255 --- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > This is related to PR78219. > > If someone takes up the challenge, then this show accept only > standard conforming type specs. That is, INTE

[Bug fortran/96255] New: [F2018] Implement option type spec for index DO CONCURRENT

2020-07-20 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jvdelisle at charter dot net Target Milestone: --- F2018 provides for an optional type spec in the DO CONCURRENT construct: R1125 concurrent-header is ( [ integer-type-spec :: ] concurrent

[Bug fortran/92643] ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90 failure on i586-*-freebsd

2020-07-20 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug libfortran/93567] G edit descriptor uses E instead of F editing in rounding mode UP

2020-07-20 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception

2020-07-18 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug libfortran/93727] Fortran 2018: EX edit descriptor

2020-07-14 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93727 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug testsuite/95546] Random Fortran test failures

2020-06-05 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug libfortran/89020] close(status='DELETE') does not remove file

2019-01-26 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020 --- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- On 1/26/19 1:07 PM, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020 > > Harald Anlauf changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug fortran/78351] comma not terminating READ of formatted input field - ok in 4.1.7, not 4.4.7- maybe related to 25419?

2016-11-14 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351 --- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- On 11/14/2016 11:09 AM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351 > > kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >W

[Bug fortran/78152] [6/7 Regression] coarray and associate

2016-11-01 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78152 --- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- On 11/01/2016 01:45 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: --- snip --- > Fortunately, I use FreeBSD as my operating system, which > unfortunately limits me to gfortran. I

[Bug fortran/77903] gfortran 6.1.0/7.0.0 accept invalid code with conflicting module/submodule interfaces

2016-10-12 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903 --- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- On 10/11/2016 10:21 PM, damian at sourceryinstitute dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903 > > --- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson --- > Check the date o

[Bug fortran/66480] FPE calling cpu_time() with -ffpe-trap=inexact

2015-06-09 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66480 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot

[Bug libfortran/48906] Wrong rounding results with -m32

2011-06-06 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906 --- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at charter dot net 2011-06-06 12:09:48 UTC --- On 06/06/2011 01:38 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote: For a scale factor 0, we are done. Good work, thank you! A scale factor != 0 does not work yet

[Bug libfortran/48906] Wrong rounding results with -m32

2011-06-06 Thread jvdelisle at charter dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906 --- Comment #27 from jvdelisle at charter dot net 2011-06-06 12:36:21 UTC --- print (-2pg12.3), 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 0.002E+01 print (-1pg12.3), 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 0.020E+00 print (0pg12.3), 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 print (1pg12.3), 0.02