On Sep 29, 2014, at 7:59 PM, George R Goffe wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
> I'll give it a try. Thanks.
>
>
> What is the problem with the mailing list software? Can't handle rich-text?
> What a pain!
I don’t know if that is true, but if so, a lot of people would argue that is a
feature. (I’m i
Hi,
I'm trying to get some help here.
I have two problems
with the mailing list software. #1) I have tried to get into digest mode
by unsubscribing and re-subscribing to the list but that's not working.
#2) I'm trying to get some help from the
"owner" of the list but emails to him are bouncing
Jonathan,
I'll give it a try. Thanks.
What is the problem with the mailing list software? Can't handle rich-text?
What a pain!
George...
From: Jonathan Wakely
To: George R Goffe
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 6:14 AM
Subject: R
Thanks for the analysis.
FYI: I don’t intend to follow up on that middle-end part, it’s much out of my
league, and I focus my limited hacking time to the Fortran front-end and
runtime library. I’ve filed the PR, so at least the problem is documented. I
will affect gfortran in the form of missed
The following is a response to what some may think an implausible
suggestion made here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2014-09/msg00124.html
The suggestion is that the system of education has been subverted so
that there are "unknown" physical laws which give "the unseen enemy"
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:09 AM, FX wrote:
> > Filed as PR63401: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63401
> >
> >
> >> This is easy to see with a simple C test case:
> >>
> >> //__attribute__ ((optimize("strength-reduce")))
> >> int foo (flo
On 27 September 2014 22:13, George R Goffe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having trouble getting email to Christoph who manages(?) the gcc-bugs
> mailing list. My emails are rejected. I'm not an email guy so the messages
> are rather indecipherable to me. Below is what I'm seeing.
>
> Regards,
>
> George..
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]>
>
> Sorry this has taken so long, the delays have been totally mine in not
> following-up to get votes, then tally them from the steering committee.
>
> I'm pleased to announce that Catherine Moore and Matthew Fortune have
>
Hi!
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:00:19 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +, "Zamyatin, Igor"
> > wrote:
> > > Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, his
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:20:44PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/24/14 14:32, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
> >>On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>After register allocation we have no idea where GOT address is and
> >>>therefore delegitimize_addre
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +, "Zamyatin, Igor"
> wrote:
> > Jeff Law wrote:
> > > The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, his
> > > assignment
> > > within Intel has changed and thus he's no
Hi!
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +, "Zamyatin, Igor"
wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
> > The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, his
> > assignment
> > within Intel has changed and thus he's not going to have time to work on
> > Cilk+ anymore.
> >
> > Igor Zamyatin has bee
> The __builtin_remainderf on x86 expands to x87 fprem1 instruction [1].
> According to the table in [1], +inf is not handled, and generates
> division-by-zero exception.
>
> IMO, we have to add "&& flag_finite_math_only" to expander enable
> condition of remainder{sf,df,xf}3 expanders in i386.md
Hello!
> I have just submitted a patch emitting some new floating-point code from the
> Fortran front-end,
> improving our IEEE support there:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02444.html
>
> However, in one of the cases where we emit a call to __builtin_remainderf(),
> we get wro
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> It was found that OA fails to build with GCC 4.9 on amd64 [1]
> I can confirm this with r3094 on bare metal too.
>
> # gcc --version
> gcc-4.9.real (Debian 4.9.1-14) 4.9.1
> Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc
Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> The failures for the gfortran.dg/coarray_collectives_9.f90 are fixed
> with the following patch:
Looks good to me. The patch is OK with a ChangLog.
Thanks for the patch and sorry for the test fails.
Tobias
Hi all!
It was found that OA fails to build with GCC 4.9 on amd64 [1]
I can confirm this with r3094 on bare metal too.
# gcc --version
gcc-4.9.real (Debian 4.9.1-14) 4.9.1
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:09 AM, FX wrote:
> Filed as PR63401: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63401
>
>
>> This is easy to see with a simple C test case:
>>
>> //__attribute__ ((optimize("strength-reduce")))
>> int foo (float x) { return __builtin_isnan(x); }
>>
>> Compiled with -O3
18 matches
Mail list logo
