https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121922
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121922
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Fixed, but I think it would be useful to cherry pick it to GCC 15. Hence, not
closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121975
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Looking at the extra output, one can find e.g. for
kernels-decompose-pr104774-1.c the following additional output:
c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-decompose-pr104774-1.c:22:9: note: beginning
‘gang-single’ part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121975
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #5)
> Thus, at least this part looks consistent - and doing the following would be
> fine:
This should have been:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-deco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121975
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 62410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62410&action=edit
Add missing "*/" in dg-comment line of c-c++-common/goacc-gomp/
This is somewhat unrelated to the actual issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121975
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
If I try reproduce to manually reproduce
> FAIL: c-c++-common/goacc-gomp/nesting-1.c -std=c++17 at line 30 (test for
> warnings, line 31)
I see (a) that there is '*/' missing in the first line. And I se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119857
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114690
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
With commit r16-3925-gda5803c794d16deb461c93588461856fbf6e54ac
libgomp: Init hash table for 'indirect'-clause of 'declare target' on the
host [PR114445, PR119857]
the implementation has changed, but to-do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114445
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
-invalid, diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following compiles but shouldn&#
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121922
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The current code assumes that memory is
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When using the delimited form of decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121806
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
[Hmm, missed some communication as I wasn't CCed.]
Patrick's suggestion lead Andre to try the following patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20250904/670e13c7/attachment-0001.bin
that
: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jas
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 62261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114445
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch for this PR (and PR119857) that moves the creation to the host:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-August/693753.html
Note it does not (yet?) address the issue of having multiple images
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119367
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think this issue is now FIXED (on mainline), including the
documentation patch for install.texi, which asks the GCC builder
to make 'objdump' available.
→ https://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#amdgcn-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121392
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #9)
> > I have submitted a Newlib patch for the related issue.
>
> Namely, https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121392
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #9)
> I have submitted a Newlib patch for the related issue.
Namely, https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/2025/022100.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121672
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
In the meeting notes for Bordeaux, I see some longer discussions notes about
Ticket 720 (afternoon of May 18, 2018 = last session). Thus, it was clearly
discussed there. - Presumably also in some break out s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121672
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Regarding the current test cases, add Sandra's comment from
PR121630 comment 0 here as well for completeness:
"The existing C/C++ and Fortran test cases only appear to work because all
three
front ends pre
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, sandra at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121630
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on: 12145
-valid-code, openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Reference members should automatically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121453
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
It seems as if - at least for the warning - the problem is the following
(.count.11 not initialized); that's for comment 2 with
!$omp target teams distribute simd collapse(3)
.iter.10 = 0;
if (1 < D.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121453
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> if (fd->collapse > 1
> && (gimple_omp_for_combined_into_p (fd->for_stmt)
> || broken_loop))
Commenting the '&& (...)' condition does not help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121452
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> > !$omp for ordered(2)
> >do i = 1, 5
> > do j = 1, 5
>
> Correction: 'for' → 'do', 'do i' → 'do 10 i' an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121452
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> !$omp for ordered(2)
>do i = 1, 5
> do j = 1, 5
Correction: 'for' → 'do', 'do i' → 'do 10 i' and 'do j' → 'do 20 j'.
This one actually fails already i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121453
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
In omp_extract_for_data, the variables are created – but actually not assigned
to.
That happens later in expand_omp_for_init_counts and expand_oacc_for, which
touches the 'count' variable (alias loop.n2) as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121392
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
As cross-ref: The same issue still exists, but more intermittently.
That's tracked as Newlib bug number 33272 on Sourceware (see 'See Also', link
was added 6 days ago).
The assumption is the same: The bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121392
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121452
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Another variant (true regression, other error message):
4 | !$omp do ordered(2)
| 1
Error: !$OMP DO inner loops must be perfectly nested with ORDERED clause at
(1)
which is a
tructured_block"
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121416
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
For completeness, modifying OpenACC's reduction-cplx-dbl.c to use atomics, i.e.
#pragma acc parallel num_gangs (32) copyin(ary[0:N]) copy(tsum,tprod)
#pragma acc loop gang
for (int ix = 0; ix < N; ix+
Keywords: openacc, openmp, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121416
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #2)
> Let's look at why the atomic instructions that exist aren't working for us,
> before we try to use the big dumb hammer fix (and does that solution
> *really* wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121394
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> Created attachment 62073 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
Not really a surprising result, but nonetheless:
I can confirm that this solves the GCN link iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118592
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120237
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121416
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121394
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams at gcc dot gnu.org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: gcn
When compiling + linking libgomp.fortran/fortran-torture_execute_math.f90
with AMD GCN offloading enabled ("-fopenmp -foffload=amdgcn-amdhsa" + in-tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121353
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
For the ICE, update the test case as follows (note the added 'a' in the
following).
TODO: Come more checks whether this works correctly, including reference-type
members. - Also check for other tricky code
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code, openmp, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
See also OpenMP Issue #4539 for putting the decla
:
ASSERT_RTX_EQ
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114445
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
I actually wonder whether we couldn't fill it on the host.
It kind of assumes sizeof(void*) is the same on the host and
on the device, but then it should work, given that htab only
allocates memory in htab_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114445
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OpenMP] indirect - |[OpenMP] indirect - race
oduct: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120753
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
BTW: Workaround:
double *tmp = u.t;
#pragma omp target is_device_ptr(tmp)
tmp[i] = 20;
Additionally, a simple 'map(u)' will not map pointer members, keeping the
address the same such that effective
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Benjamin Schulz from comment #3)
> oh that last comment should have been made in another bug about an internal
> compiler error. Sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120237
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Iain pointed out (on IRC) that ISL > 0.24 will cause an in-tree build fail with
GCC-10.5 due to its use of C++17 (and seemingly not properly adding -std=c++17,
cf. PR 115077).
[BTW: GCC requires C++14; GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113436
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch by Kwok: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/687685.html
Follow up for allocatables,see PR119905.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119905
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Needs to be also handled with ALLOCATE clause, cf. PR113436, see also PR95506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119905
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Also to be checked: ABSENT OPTIONAL arguments with PRIVATE, FIRSTPRIVATE
MAP and target update's TO/FROM clauses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120737
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120722
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Fails for:
Breakpoint 1, gen_highpart (mode=E_SImode, x=0x77195378) at
/home/tob/repos/gcc/gcc/emit-rtl.cc:1674
1674 gcc_assert (result && !MEM_P (result));
(gdb) p result
$1 = (rtx) 0x0
(gdb) p
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tschwing
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120682
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
> If you are asking for a new OpenMP feature, this is not the right forum,
> GCC bugzilla is for reporting bugs.
While I want to echo what Jakub wrote, I have nonetheless filed the OpenMP
specification issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120680
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
s: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: nvptx
I get l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93226
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #5)
> On OG15, for both nvptx and GCN offloading, I see:
...
The code has in the module:
integer :: D(N)
!$acc declare device_resident(D)
The problem is that o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119677
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Additionally, there is a check for a conforming device number for
metadirectives:
omp_device_num_check (tree *device_num, bool *is_host)
{
...
/* Otherwise, test that -1 <= *device_num <= omp_get_num_devi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
> That system has unified shared memory
Indeed, if I compare the host and the device addresses, I see
different values (= mapped) for sptr1, sptr1->ptrset, sptr1->ptrset2 (→ OK)
BUT: sptr1->ptrset[i] and s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
> FAILs its execution test for nvptx offloading
That's not generally true:
Running gcc/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/c.exp ...
PASS: libgomp.c/target-map-zero-sized-3.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120444
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
oduct: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120180
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
The ICE is now fixed (GCC mainline/16 + GCC 15). [Thanks!]
Open are the issues (or "issues") → comment 3
* non-executable directives (like 'omp nothing' or 'omp error at(compile)') as
intervening code [Ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93226
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93226
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
omp_target_memset and omp_target_memset_async should be implemented.
This requires on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120413
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
ICE FIXED so far for mainline (GCC 16) and GCC 15.
* * *
Reading:
> There is also BIND_EXPR_VARS, dunno if that should be walked instead
> or in addition.
The current code is about adding map clauses for
: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ams at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
C23 (and Fortran 2023) added sinpi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118694
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
STATUS:
* 'target teams' handles the target part differently, depending whether
a 'teams' follows or not. Thus, the host (launching the offload kernel)
has to know whether a 'teams' follows or not.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93226
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 61519
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61519&action=edit
Draft patch for 'acc_memcpy_device' - (only) missing are testcases (and
possibly a bit cleanup/testing)
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120413
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Cf. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-May/684581.html for
draft patch + discussion about whether BIND_EXPR_VARS needs to be handled as
well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120413
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|C++ OpenMP 'target' SIGSEGV |[12/13/14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120413
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Technically, this is a [12/13/14/15/16 Regressions], unsurprising as the code
has been added in GCC 12.
* * *
The resulting code for the target regions like:
struct array arr;
<;
try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118694
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
> Are we required to diagnose this as an error
> or is it allowable to permit this as an extension?
Answer "no" and "yes" - but the problem is that in general it does not work.
(Potential wrong code issues,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120167
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120225
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113413
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108577
Bug 108577 depends on bug 113413, which changed state.
Bug 113413 Summary: ATAND(Y,X) is unsupported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113413
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
--- Comment #20 from Tobias Burnus ---
And for the condition, I think the proper way is to write:
#if MPFR_VERSION >= MPFR_VERSION_NUM(4,2,0)
... = mpfr_sinpi ( ... )
#else
fallback
#endif
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
contrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #8)
> > * gfortran.dg/do_concurrent_basic.f90: Extend testcase.
>
> I noticed this removed execution and torture testing; maybe unintentionally?
I thin
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
New in mpfr 4.2.0: "New functions mpfr_cosu, mpfr_sinu, mpfr_tanu, mpfr_acosu,
mpfr_asinu, mpfr_atanu and mpfr_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120194
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Hmm, actually, it looks as if I have already implemented (B.2) in GCC 15+ in
libgomp/target.c's gomp_load_image_to_device:
if (is_link_var
&& (omp_requires_mask
& (GOMP_REQUIRE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120194
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
> ... this is ill-formed OpenMP?
For 'requires unified_shared_memory', you are in the realm of un(der)specified
behavior as OpenMP does not even mention how this case is handled.
If you do (A) - or (B.1) +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120180
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #3 from Tobia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120194
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Without having looked at it in depth, I think part of the problem is that
'varX' and 'varY' are in static memory. Thus, by construction, there is a
device and a host version.
Solution:
(a) Ensure the date
1 - 100 of 4048 matches
Mail list logo
