--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-08-11 03:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE in ix86_expand_epilogue compiling libgcc
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 05:49:40AM -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
Does anyone know which combination
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-07-20 23:35 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran.dg/allocate_with_typespec.f90 failed
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:41:01PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
gfortran.dg/allocate_with_typespec.f90 shows on x86
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-16 17:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] incorrect error: Stat-variable at (1) shall
not be DEALLOCATEd within the same DEALLOCATE statement
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 02:34:34PM -, kargl at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-11 20:16 ---
Subject: Re: DEALLOCATE aborts program even with STAT=
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:22:57PM -, remko dot scharroo at me dot com
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from remko dot scharroo at me dot
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 01:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:42:11AM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
}
#if 0
if (gfc_match_eos () != MATCH_YES
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 04:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:17:56AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
I plan to commit the following as simple
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 04:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:46:56AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 04:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:52:03AM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
Neither testcase includes
--- Comment #15 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-01 03:07 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect output at run time
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:09:38AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
My take on this as I was reading through this thread before I got
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-04-22 17:38 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] ICE during linking in testsuite
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 08:22:26PM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I guess you have to debug it - I do not have a freebsd system
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-04-22 18:54 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] ICE during linking in testsuite
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:38:18PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
This appears to be an incompatibility
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-04-21 19:14 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] ICE during linking in testsuite
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:01:43AM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-01-16 00:22 ---
Subject: Re: internal compiler error: in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage
ERROR 1
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:04:27AM -, hcolella at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #2 from hcolella
--- Comment #15 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-12-18 15:52 ---
Subject: Re: Complex division by zero in gfortran returns wrong results
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 02:42:15PM -, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Do you want to suspend this PR or to junk
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-20 00:20 ---
Subject: Re: overloaded function with allocatable result problem
If the code is compiled with -fdump-tree-original one
immediately see the cause of the runtime error. Eliminating
the common code
--- Comment #17 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-17 06:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.4 Regression] data statement with nested type
constructors
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 05:35:33AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
- Comment #16 from jvdelisle
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-15 19:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.4 Regression] data statement with nested type
constructors
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 07:04:42PM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #12 from
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 18:57 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
- Comment #6 from denis_scherbakov at yahoo dot com 2009-09-11 18:38 ---
By saying works I mean that on my system program with
real
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 19:45 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
Ok, but then real and double precision datatypes should
behave in the same way? No?
They do behave the same at least from the Fortran
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 20:26 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
What is your hardware? x86 or something else?
Opteron.
I have Atlon 2000 MP and Intel Quad and on both of these systems I get
--- Comment #16 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 21:08 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:39:38PM -, mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I get:
pr41335.f:3.23:
volatile double
--- Comment #19 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 22:39 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 06:18:35PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
program VolatileTest
double precision, volatile
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-08-30 17:58 ---
Subject: Re: NAMELIST input with just a comment (NAME ! comment \) fails
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 05:48:15PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-08-30 18:54 ---
Subject: Re: NAMELIST input with just a comment (NAME ! comment \) fails
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 06:15:07PM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
Strictly speaking, Steve, I think you
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-08-31 00:30 ---
Subject: Re: NAMELIST input with just a comment (NAME ! comment \) fails
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:07:34AM -, urbanjost at comcast dot net wrote:
--- Comment #6 from urbanjost
--- Comment #18 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-07-20 17:56 ---
Subject: Re: libcpp breaks bootstrap
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 05:42:50PM -, jlquinn at optonline dot net wrote:
--- Comment #16 from jlquinn at optonline dot net 2009-07-20 17:42
--- Comment #20 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-07-20 18:28 ---
Subject: Re: libcpp breaks bootstrap
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 06:09:46PM -, jlquinn at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Author: jlquinn
Date: Mon Jul 20 18:09:33 2009
New Revision: 149826
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-07-19 05:30 ---
Subject: Re: libcpp breaks bootstrap
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:09:31AM -, jlquinn at optonline dot net wrote:
--- Comment #10 from jlquinn at optonline dot net 2009-07-19 05:09
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-06-14 22:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Bootstrap broken on FreeBSD in tree.c
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:02:26PM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-06-01 14:56 ---
Subject: Re: Complex division by zero in gfortran returns wrong results
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:35:05AM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-06-01 19:16 ---
Subject: Re: Complex division by zero in gfortran returns wrong results
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 06:14:52PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-04-30 16:09 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran support for non-standard sind,cosd and friends
intrinsics
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 07:38:31AM -, ruben at tapir dot caltech dot edu
wrote:
--- Comment #9 from
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-04-26 03:29 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran ICE on invalid program
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 08:47:19PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-25 20
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-04-04 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: Compile-time simplification of x**(real)
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 08:44:36PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
At revision 145521, the test from comment #2 returns: T F
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-02-26 15:09 ---
Subject: Re: parameter (constant) and initialization with hex values
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:59:05PM -, rvatne at gmail dot com wrote:
running:
gfortran -g -std=f95 -ffree-form -frange
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-02-25 22:38 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in cselib_hash_rtx with -O -fPIC -mcmodel=large
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:47:45AM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:43 ---
Subject: Re: New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:08:40AM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the second
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:28:05AM -, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
-2.0^1.9 will be a complex number. Maybe we can define
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:55 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:30:40AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:58 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:37:25AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 21:30 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:13:57PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-08 17:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Yet another TRANSFER ICE
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:42:52PM -, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
gfc_target_encode_expr has no means to deal
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-05 02:32 ---
Subject: Re: Segfault caused by derived-type with allocatable component in
private clause
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:31:20PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 06:57 ---
Subject: Re: [F2003] random_seed - allow integer(8) for the arguments
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:44:07AM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
INVALID - only default integers are allowed
--- Comment #24 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 14:37 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:10:21PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #23
--- Comment #26 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:43:13PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I'll also note
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 01:02 ---
Subject: Re: [F2003] random_seed - allow integer(8) for the arguments
I just checked the F2008 draft for the next standard. It says
13.7.95 RANDOM SEED ([SIZE, PUT, GET])
Description
--- Comment #20 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 04:55 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 04:27:23AM -, deji_aking at yahoo dot ca wrote:
From comment 1
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 14:03 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:30:28PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #5 from
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 15:03 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:36:07PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
What does ... print
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 16:19 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 03:47:30PM -, deji_aking at yahoo dot ca wrote:
--- Comment #9 from
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 18:40 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 05:51:06PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
i = NaN
--- Comment #28 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-07 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 08:25:54AM -, linuxl4 at sohu dot com wrote:
somebody fix it please.
If it were easy
--- Comment #1 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-06 18:14 ---
Subject: Re: New: gfortran.dg/size_kind.f90 doesn't work
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 06:10:58PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
On Linux/ia32, revision 140065 gave
FAIL: gfortran.dg
--- Comment #29 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-04 06:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling libgcc
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 05:53:28AM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #28 from hjl dot tools
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-02 16:57 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran errors in compilation and the making for upgraded
compilers
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:23PM -, petermorgan at grapevine dot net dot
au wrote:
gfortran -O
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-01 16:56 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap failure due to __muldi3
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:30:27AM -, graham dot stott at btinternet dot
com wrote:
--- Comment #10 from graham dot stott at btinternet
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-08-08 23:46 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 09:06:37PM -, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
--- Comment #9 from jv244
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-05-16 22:01 ---
Subject: Re: PUBLIC and PRIVATE abuse
I have a patch for this. It simply issues a warning
because it appears to be benign.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36251
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-05-16 22:10 ---
Subject: Re: PUBLIC and PRIVATE abuse
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:58:47PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
And using
bind(C) :: a
Nice catch.
gives even an ICE. For PUBLIC
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 20:15 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:53:40PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
I disagree. In Fortran 2003
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 20:41 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:23:16PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
(In reply to comment #3
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 23:05 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55:31PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 23:52 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
Don't worry, I share your confusion (when I read the standard). :)
I think the passage you quote applies
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-26 18:00 ---
Subject: Re: fast-math-pr33299.f90 failure with illegal instruction due to
-ffast-math.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:53:52PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-17 18:09 ---
Subject: Re: IBITS gives compiler error
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:10:06PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
I dont want to rant again about gfortran feature, but nevertheless I'll
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-17 19:59 ---
Subject: Re: IBITS gives compiler error
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 07:10:19PM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-17 19
--- Comment #26 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-02 16:38 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 11:09:36AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
A short term solution could be to improve
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-01 16:04 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:31:49PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
With the patch in comment #18
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-01-20 04:17 ---
Subject: Re: fast-math-pr33299.f90 failure with illegal instruction due to
-ffast-math.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 04:09:19AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
What instructions
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-12-20 22:27 ---
Subject: Re: DTIME returns total process time and not since last invocation
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:39:29PM -, dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Daniel, are you working on this PR
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-11-28 20:08 ---
Subject: Re: Expressions of parameters evaluated with too high precision
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:23:57PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
To sum up my point of view: -fno
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-24 19:59 ---
Subject: Re: Spurious warning in TRANSFER intrinsic in Sept 24 snapshot of
gfortran
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 07:17:54PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-24 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: Spurious warning in TRANSFER intrinsic in Sept 24 snapshot of
gfortran
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:26:01PM -, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
On 24 Sep 2007 19:59:37 -, sgk
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 18:02 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:56:36PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The problem is found in decl.c(top_val_list
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 19:16 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:02:03PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
The problem is found in decl.c
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 19:26 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:16:42PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
Ugh. I have a patch that would
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 20:07 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:26:22PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
If I'm not mistaken
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-10 18:28 ---
Subject: Re: GFORTRAN OPTIMIZATION ERROR ABOVE -O0 FOR MPICH2 TEST
F90_RMA/BASEATTRWINF90.F90
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 04:03:21PM -, longb at cray dot com wrote:
gcc version 4.2.1 20070719
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-08 19:17 ---
Subject: Re: GFORTRAN OPTIMIZATION ERROR ABOVE -O0 FOR MPICH2 TEST
F90_RMA/BASEATTRWINF90.F90
ftn -o x -O2 bug2867.f90
aprun -n 1 ./x
Got incorrect value for WIN_SIZE
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-30 22:24 ---
Subject: Re: TAB in FORMAT: accept extension, warn with -std=f*
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:52:56PM -, fago at caltech dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #12 from fago at caltech dot edu 2007
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-10 03:50 ---
Subject: Re: TAB in FORMAT: accept extension, warn with -std=f*
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 03:27:33AM -, satyaakam at yahoo dot co dot in
wrote:
Any plans to backport.
No.
Please
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-04 17:00 ---
Subject: Re: TAB in FORMAT: accept extension, warn with -std=f*
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:53:33PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I therefore suggest:
- Silently accept the tab
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-03 20:33 ---
Subject: Re: Implement vendor-specific ISNAN() intrinsic function
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:25:08PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If we're going to implement isnan, then we
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 20:32 ---
Subject: Re: Compiling equiv_7_db.f90 gives an error with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:26:44PM -, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If we use -fdefault-integer-8
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 21:06 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
I applied your patch, but on PPC Darwin I get 10 times
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:17:02PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
look to yours, but with -fdefault-integer-8, I get '1
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 22:29 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:17:02PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
look to yours, but with -fdefault-integer-8, I get '1
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 23:49 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:02:55PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-03 00:04 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:02:55PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
I think you need the same kind of machinery
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 18:40 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:04:02PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I have reduced the failure for intrinsic_rrspacing.f90
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 19:37 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:56:33PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
So, we need to review every unilateral use
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 20:50 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:32:56PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #12 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 21:48 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:39:28PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
The rrspacing problem is something besides -fdefault
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 22:29 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:04:55PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
It is an opteron, so little endian.
So rrspacing
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-04 20:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] Different results depending on unnecessary
variable declaration
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:06:08PM -, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #7
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-20 01:47 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:59:25PM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-16 04:07 ---
Subject: Re: Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:46:30AM -, jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com wrote:
--- Comment #5 from jkrahn at nc dot
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-16 04:09 ---
Subject: Re: Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:53:57AM -, jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com wrote:
I have not checked F2008 yet. My vote
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-06 15:53 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:20:23AM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-03-06
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
