https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index 249f402b8d9..da8e3b63249 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
@@ -12437,7 +12437,8 @@ resolve_charlen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96986
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> I think there already exists at least one PR with issues with initializers.
>
> A reduced testcase shows that default initialization works for i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> @Steve: that's pretty basic F2003 stuff, almost TR15581...
Yes, I know. Point being that quoting some third-party
interpretation of what one version of the Fortran standard
says is of limi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #27 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #26)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #23)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> > > There's also valid code that ICEs, and invalid cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #24 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
>
> And after fixing an obvious NULL pointer dereference,
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49816
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49816=edit
Newest patch.
This new patch implements Thomas idea of generating appropriate library ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49791=edit
new diff with improvements
New diff with a better implementation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49770=edit
random_init() patch
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98284
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98253
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> Invalid expectation?
Not sure. This long response was composed before I saw Damian's reply.
At the risk of starting an existential argum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98253
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Third thought. Here are the programs you meant to write (without error
checking such as how_to_use_random_init must be run before
how_to_seed_with_random_seed_like_random_init).
program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98253
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On 2nd thought.
Of course, the results are different.
In your first example, you have
call random_init(repeatable=.true., image_distinct=.true.)
which gets you processor-dependent seeds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98253
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dpozar from comment #11)
> Thomas,
>
> that looks good. But I am not sure how to proceed ...
>
> dave
Well, the first thing to do is to use either nm or objdump on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98046
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> This problem was originally reported on
> https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/lock-in-libpthread-
> occurs-only-on-one-arch-installation-only-with-gcc-fortran-4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98023
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c
===
--- gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c (revision 280157)
+++ gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c (working copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95847
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> I can only confirm it's a Fortran issue.
> Can please anybody from Fortran folks take a look?
First, the caveat, the Fortran code in the at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54771
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51678
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36062
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469
Bug 18469 depends on bug 21481, which changed state.
Bug 21481 Summary: crtstuff.c should not include auto-host.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21481
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21481
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #18)
> Any ICE is a bug.
If powerpc64 does not have REAL(16), then you'll need
to xfail the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97210
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97176
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97122
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-20
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89067
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97031
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97003
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96859
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96811
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Trivial workaround.
program nint_error
implicit none
integer(kind=16) :: m
real(8) :: x, y
x = 1
y = x - 1
m = anint(y)
print *, m
end
This will use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96686
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96668
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> Created attachment 49066 [details]
> WIP patch
>
> The underlying issue is visible in the tree-dump, see also comment#1 by
> Steve.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96624
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libfortran |fortran
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96583
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #18 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49015
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49015=edit
Bring get_environment_variable almost to F2018 conformance
* check.c (gfc_check_get_environment_varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #10)
> Compiled with -g, rerun gives
>
> $ ./a.out
> Fortran runtime error: Zero-length string passed as value to
> get_environment_varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #4)
> > $ export HOSTNAME=foo
> > $ ./a.out
> > $
> >
> > $ export HOSTNAME=
> &g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> I do note there are other problems with get_environment_variable.
>
> 1) Neither length nor status can be integer(1). gfortran should issue
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I do note there are other problems with get_environment_variable.
1) Neither length nor status can be integer(1). gfortran should issue
an error.
2) Fortran 2018 has added an optional errmsg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96436
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to jvdelisle from comment #9)
> I regression tested the patch in comment 8 and see these failures.
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr93423.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #8 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is a nasty bug, and I've run out of ideas on how to find a fix. :(
Simplified testcase
implicit none
type t2
integer r1
end type
type(t2) :: t
integer :: a
a = t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-27
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #20)
> (In reply to Tiziano Müller from comment #19)
>
> >
> > *** snip: modb.f90 ***
> > module modb
> > use moda, only:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > The patch in PR 95025 fixes this issue.
>
> PR 96025, I assume.
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
New patch. This adds a bool component to gfc_forall_iterator so
that an iterator with an index-name that shadows a variable from
outer scope can be marked. Shadowing only occurs when a type-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:44:16PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88080
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(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 (, );
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||78219
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to jvdelisle from comment #12)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> > > > As of svn reversion r280157, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> > As of svn reversion r280157, the issue is not fixed.
>
> Do you know the git equivalent?
No. I don't use git. r280157 is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 08:13:31PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote:
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95293
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> Isn't it an aliasing problem?
No. It is not an aliasing problem. It is an invalid
program giving a result that the programmer does not
exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96102
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96038
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following fixed-form source code:
function ifoo()
parameter (n = 50)
integer n
ifoo = n
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #5)
> (In reply to markeggleston from comment #4)
> > Regarding comment 2.
> >
> > Using -fallow-invalid-boz results in an ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
501 - 600 of 3048 matches
Mail list logo
