--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 04:40
---
Subject: Bug 41278
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Dec 1 04:40:14 2009
New Revision: 154864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154864
Log:
2009-11-30 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 04:41
---
Fixed on Trunk and 4.4
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-29 19:36
---
Created an attachment (id=19180)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19180action=view)
Hopefully final patch
This patch moves the number of elements patch up front so that the error is
given
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 03:59
---
Ok, if I back up one step and leave the error message in trans-array.c and use
gfc_fatal_error we get a usable patch. One thing this is showing is that the
expansion is being done in the parsing/matching phase
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 15:10
---
Created an attachment (id=19170)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19170action=view)
Third time is a charm
This patch resolves the last remaining regression. Removing the didn't
reduce error
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 15:16
---
With this simply modified case:
program sel
implicit none
integer,parameter :: n=10
integer:: i,j,k,l
real,dimension(n*n*n*n) :: vect
vect
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 17:14
---
Created an attachment (id=19172)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19172action=view)
Slightly modified charm
This version handles Dominique's test case in comment #17.
--
http
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 17:52
---
The patch in comment #18 passes all regression tests as well. I hope we are
honing in on this. It does make me wonder why at this point the BT type is
unknown.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 01:46
---
Created an attachment (id=19168)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19168action=view)
Updated patch
This exploratory patch passes all regression tests. I have also successfully
compiled and run
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 05:04
---
I missed one regression from the patch in comment #13. Stay tuned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 13:02
---
This is what I would call a very fundamental bug, at the soul of what fortran
is suppose to do. I am looking at it but think it would go better with a team
effort here. Anyone have any thoughts about
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 14:35
---
I think we need to gfc_walk_op_expr before we try to gfc_conv_array_transpose
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41278
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 17:50
---
Removing the assert appears to fix this. Testing now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41278
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 19:05
---
Subject: Bug 41278
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 26 19:05:37 2009
New Revision: 154680
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154680
Log:
2009-11-26 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 19:10
---
Subject: Bug 41278
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 26 19:10:29 2009
New Revision: 154681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154681
Log:
2009-11-26 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #27 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 21:53
---
Subject: Bug 41807
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 26 21:52:52 2009
New Revision: 154690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154690
Log:
2009-11-26 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #28 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 21:57
---
Subject: Bug 41807
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 26 21:57:32 2009
New Revision: 154691
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154691
Log:
2009-11-26 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 22:11
---
Just a note of appreciation to Chris for reporting this bug and providing a
simple and extremely useful test case. When I get a moment, I will add Chris
to the test case as recognition.
Shall we backport
--- Comment #29 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 22:18
---
Subject: Bug 41807
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 26 22:18:36 2009
New Revision: 154692
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154692
Log:
2009-11-26 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #30 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 22:21
---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 07:31
---
Created an attachment (id=19161)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19161action=view)
Preliminary patch
This patch cuts the compilation time of the original test case in half. It
passes all
--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 01:08
---
Since we are dealing with invalid fortran code, we can use gfc_fatal_error and
avoid the downstream errors and trying to translate bogus code. This is the
cheap way out of it.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 02:12
---
This is better, set the expr to a valid constant 0 before converting to a tree.
Index: trans-const.c
===
--- trans-const.c (revision 154660
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-26 03:26
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:38
---
Subject: Bug 41807
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 25 02:37:57 2009
New Revision: 154529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154529
Log:
2009-11-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:41
---
Subject: Bug 42008
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 25 02:41:20 2009
New Revision: 154530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154530
Log:
2009-11-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:42
---
Subject: Bug 42008
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 25 02:42:22 2009
New Revision: 154531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154531
Log:
2009-11-24 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:43
---
I messed up the PR Number again. The commit for above was:
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 154529.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42008
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 02:44
---
Disregard comment #22 , wrong PR number.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41807
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 03:34
---
When attempting to backport the patch to 4.4.3 from mainline data_value_1.f90
test failes with a segmentation fault.
$ gfc44 data_value_1.f90
data_value_1.f90:12.21:
DATA P / POINT(1.+X) / ! { dg-error
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:44
---
Without the patch it is rejected, with the patch it is not. I will look into
this further.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42008
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 04:32
---
This seems to do the trick:
Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 154430)
+++ decl.c (working copy)
@@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ variable_decl
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:56
---
Also see PR 41807 for related info.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 03:06
---
This appears to fix this with no regressions. I will commit as obvious
tomorrow.
Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 154430)
+++ decl.c
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 03:10
---
This is also failing on x86-64. It is not target specific unless there is
another PR for the x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41664
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 22:15
---
Here is a tentative patch. I removed the offending code and ran the testsuite
to see what would happen. The only failure was the test case associated with
patch that caused the regression. This failure
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 02:05
---
Subject: Bug 41807
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Nov 22 02:05:12 2009
New Revision: 154419
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154419
Log:
2009-11-21 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 02:06
---
Subject: Bug 41807
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Nov 22 02:06:26 2009
New Revision: 154420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154420
Log:
2009-11-21 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 02:10
---
Fixed on trunk. Note I inadvertently left off the PR number in the commit.
It was:
SendingChangeLog
Sendingresolve.c
Sendingtrans-const.c
Transmitting file data ...
Committed revision
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 02:44
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Nov 21 02:44:01 2009
New Revision: 154397
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154397
Log:
2009-11-20 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 02:46
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Nov 21 02:45:48 2009
New Revision: 154398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154398
Log:
2009-11-20 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 03:33
---
Fixed and closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 04:00
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Nov 20 04:00:03 2009
New Revision: 154355
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154355
Log:
2009-11-19 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 04:02
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Nov 20 04:02:33 2009
New Revision: 154356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154356
Log:
2009-11-19 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 18:04
---
Yes, I will have a look tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42090
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 03:49
---
Confirmed and have a patch.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 04:50
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 19 04:50:04 2009
New Revision: 154316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154316
Log:
2009-11-18 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 05:27
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 19 05:27:15 2009
New Revision: 154317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154317
Log:
2009-11-18 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-17 04:17
---
The offending patch is in 4.4 r148732, r148731 passes the test case.
--- branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c 2009/04/03 20:56:54
145519
+++ branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-17 04:29
---
I have confirmed on trunk that removing that snippet clears the regression.
Looking at gfc_is_constant_expr we see a call to array.c (gfc_constant_ac)
which does indeed modify the expr. So we have a bad side
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-17 05:35
---
I propose fixing this at gfc_consant_ac which has the following comment:
/* Given an array constructor, determine if the constructor is
constant or not by expanding it and making sure that all elements
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-15 19:04
---
When we simplify start[i], we turn that expression into a constant. Then I
believe the traverse_data_var can no longer increment the index since we made
it a constant. I don't think the start[i] expression
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-14 18:35
---
Does anyone recognize this in resolve.c
/* If we have more than one element left in the repeat count,
and we have more than one element left in the target variable,
then create a range
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-14 21:24
---
Interesting, the following patch allows the test case in comment #4 to compile.
Index: data.c
===
--- data.c (revision 154170)
+++ data.c
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-10 20:30
---
Marking status as waiting.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 05:20
---
I have tracked through the matchers and as suspected, the iterator is being
initialised correctly. Start, End, and Step are all constants. This hints at
some corruption. As time allows I will follow
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-06 03:21
---
I have a patch for this testing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-04 00:32
---
Changed summary to reflect current status. Writes are fixed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-31 01:49
---
I will be busy for a while so unassignning to allow others to give it a go.
What remains is reading in kind=10 and kind=16 reals with BOZ format.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 19:20
---
Subject: Bug 41711
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Oct 29 19:20:18 2009
New Revision: 153724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153724
Log:
2009-10-29 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-21 03:04
---
With your patch, I am not seeing the double free. But I do get this:
85078576
85078520
85078576
85078576
2 2
==27755==
==27755== ERROR
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-16 01:41
---
I had a chance to review our code here. It uses gfc_xtoa which resides in
runtime\error.c. All of our conversion routines are dependent on
GFC_UINTEGER_LARGEST which is platform dependent. I think
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-16 01:58
---
This seems to work. (Although I thought I saw once for the z4 value.)
program z
implicit none
real(10) e
integer i
integer(8), dimension(2) :: it
call random_seed()
do i=1,100
call
: libfortran
AssignedTo: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41711
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 03:14
---
Try this patch. Does it give reasonable results? Does endianess matter here?
Index: write.c
===
--- write.c (revision 152697)
+++ write.c
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 03:15
---
With the patch above, I get:
$ ./a.out
4 8 10
0.9975595E+00 3FEFEC02
0.997559590092617E+00 3FEFEC0216E8495F
0.99755959009261720E+00 3FEFEC0216E8495F
0.99755959009261720E+00
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 05:10
---
For your immediate need, can you transfer to character string and then parse
the bits? Or possibly read and right to a file using stream IO that will give
you byte for byte access to the values.
--
http
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 19:17
---
Fixed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 19:20
---
Dominiq, thanks for tracking this down. So the example code in this
otherfortran manual is invalid. I noticed a few other examples in there that
are obfuscated in some manner to not be valid. I am sure just
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 01:09
---
With gfortran 4.5 trunk r152402 on Cygwin 1.7 the test case executes normally.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35952
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 01:49
---
Closing. Works on latest gfortran. Upgrade to later version.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 12:28
---
In the original test case:
real :: i
The part that is rejected incorrectly is the format label.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41678
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 12:42
---
Interestingly, I removed this previously:
switch (t)
{
-case FMT_P:
- t = format_lex (fmt);
- if (t == FMT_POSINT)
- {
- fmt-error = Repeat count cannot follow P descriptor
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41683
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 12:52
---
ahh, I was looking at the F2003 Standard which is not as clear. However, is
this relaxation in F2003 done on purpose? I found the rejected code in the IBM
compiler manual as an example.
--
http
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 13:39
---
Possible patch untested:
Index: io/format.c
===
--- io/format.c (revision 152657)
+++ io/format.c (working copy)
@@ -706,7 +706,8 @@
goto
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 13:42
---
See PR 41683 and continue there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38439
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 01:43
---
Subject: Bug 41683
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 13 01:43:39 2009
New Revision: 152695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152695
Log:
2009-10-12 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 02:05
---
Subject: Bug 41683
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 13 02:03:54 2009
New Revision: 152696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152696
Log:
2009-10-12 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-11 17:38
---
Subject: Bug 38439
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Oct 11 17:37:50 2009
New Revision: 152644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152644
Log:
2009-10-11 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-11 17:41
---
Subject: Bug 38439
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Oct 11 17:41:23 2009
New Revision: 152645
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152645
Log:
2009-10-11 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-11 19:20
---
Fixed enough I think. Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 00:53
---
Subject: Bug 38439
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Oct 12 00:52:45 2009
New Revision: 152657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152657
Log:
2009-10-11 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 00:54
---
Subject: Bug 38439
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Oct 12 00:54:11 2009
New Revision: 152658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152658
Log:
2009-10-11 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41678
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-10 17:34
---
Subject: Bug 41612
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 10 17:34:06 2009
New Revision: 152624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152624
Log:
2009-10-10 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-10 17:55
---
Reoly to Comment #17: See PR41612. I committed a fix to round_2.f03 that
tests for the kind parameter being valid and also adds kind=8 checking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35862
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-10 18:57
---
Subject: Bug 35862
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 10 18:57:35 2009
New Revision: 152627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152627
Log:
2009-10-10 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-10 23:02
---
Subject: Bug 35862
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 10 23:02:11 2009
New Revision: 152632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152632
Log:
2009-10-10 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-10 00:42
---
The problem here is we don't pass the expression locus to the tag checking
routine so the best it can do is the end of the line. To fix this is fairly
mechanical, but affects many places.
--
http
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 01:24
---
Subject: Bug 41612
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Oct 7 01:24:27 2009
New Revision: 152510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152510
Log:
2009-10-06 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 01:26
---
Fixed on trunk. This test may still fail for platforms that have neither
kind=10 or kind=16.
Probably we should just XFAIL those if they show up.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 01:29
---
Please let us know if you fix this and/or you are still stuck.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41601
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 03:08
---
Subject: Bug 35862
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 6 03:08:20 2009
New Revision: 152483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152483
Log:
2009-10-05 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 03:12
---
Subject: Bug 35862
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 6 03:12:21 2009
New Revision: 152484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152484
Log:
2009-10-05 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
401 - 500 of 3029 matches
Mail list logo
