https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:37:11PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Confirmed. I don't think the mentioned revision caused the problem, other
> than
> adding a new test case that fails the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:15:46PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
>
> janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88685
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:40:52AM +, antony at cosmologist dot info wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88685
>
> --- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis ---
> I think the individual elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:39:05PM +, seurer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
>
> --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Program received signal S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 04:06:52PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
>
> --- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
>
> It should be valid code, just as legal as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88116
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 04:59:21PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88116
>
> --- Comment #6 from G. Steinmetz ---
>
> (In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 08:37:32AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Libgomp certainly does respect RUNTES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:56:21AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88124
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:59:08AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:49:55AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
> > The type has SEQUEN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88124
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:49:55AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
> The type has SEQUENCE, so I think this should actually work... or did I miss
> something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88124
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:57:05AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88124
>
> --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 06:34:01PM +, gavin.keith.ridley at gmail dot com
wrote:
> OK, I see, thank you. I believe you're right on that. When I
> tried to make this example, I cut out an important part that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 01:24:00PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> This should be fixed now, please confirm (I can't even get a
> build to complete with -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11:54PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> The problem is that gfortran devel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:40:16PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > There is an obvious patch.
> > I will commit my patch by the end of the day,
> > or revert the patch causing the problem.
>
> O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:24:57PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Why can't you use autoconf or autoreconf like everybody else?
>
Why not fix the under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:35:48PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01923.html
> and https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00059.html
>
Why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:46:33PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> % find . -type f | xargs grep Wabi
> ...
> ./libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4: WARN_FLAGS='-Wall -Wextr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:55:15AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:55:15AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Can you check whether removing --e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:21:20PM +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
>
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > 'gmake -j6 check-fortran' has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:05:23PM +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
>
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Since when?
>
> The dawn of ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 07:33:48PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> gmake[4]: *** [Makefile:306: check-DEJAGNU] Error 1
> gmake[4]: Leaving directory
> '/safe/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 07:20:02PM +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> The correct invocation of a GCC testsuite is "make -k check-blah", otherwise
> the recursive Make processes will stop on errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:59:53PM +, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> The multiplication is optimized out under -ffinite-math-only -fno-signed-zeros
> (o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86316
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 06:44:48AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
> Not sure how it escaped earlier testing... anyway, fixed.
>
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86281
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:36:04PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I don't know how this got past my regtesting...
>
> The regression on assumed_charlen_function_7.f90 was entirely my
> fault. I fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 03:55:02PM +, guez at lmd dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
>
> --- Comment #11 from Lionel GUEZ ---
> And what about my suggestion that ieee_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67883
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 06:21:06PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from G. Steinmetz ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #4 and #5)
> > trunk can now compile this code.
> Confirming that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78571
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 07:01:47AM +, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78571
>
> Christophe Lyon changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 03:40:40AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> There is, however, a bug with respect to F2018:
>
> C1588 A local variable of a pure subprogram, or of a BLOCK construct
> within a p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86057
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:06:04AM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Sorry for the breakage, patch candidate sent here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86051
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:17:42AM +, daniel.bershatsky at skolkovotech dot
ru wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86051
>
> --- Comment #3 from Daniel Bershatsky ru> ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86057
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:21:29PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
> mempcpy is in libiberty but we don't compile a target version of libiberty.
>
Looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86045
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:02:47PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86045
>
> --- Comment #4 from G. Steinmetz ---
> > There's a are different issue than the one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86057
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:25:12PM +, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
> Affects Solaris, too (and almost certainly macOS as well).
>
mempcpy seems to be a glibc 2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 05:05:42PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > There are 3 commits to gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 10:02:35AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> Nice reduction!-)
>
> The ICE appeared between revisions r258235 (2018-03-04, OK) and r258362
> (2018-03-08, ICE) and the commit h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Stephan,
>
> I tried the simply patch suggested in your analysis and
> it does fix the problem. I need to extend the patch to
> fix the m4 files that utilize the macro as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:53:33PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I have a patch.
>
I have new patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:46:17PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> This patch causes an error message to be generated. Need to
> go find standard language to determine if the reference of
> an arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:50:54PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
>
> Jonathan Wakely changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 07:27:28PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> i.e. there's no invalid C++ at all, you're just asking for all warnings to
> break your b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 03:46:59AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> svn merge -rhead:260263 .
>
Further bisection.
svn merge -r260380:260379 .
So, r260380 is the cau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
--- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 09:52:57PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85843
>
> kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #33 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:23:41PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
>
> --- Comment #32 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #31 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > The order of the evaluation of ping() and pong() is
> > not specified by the Fortran standard.
>
> This PR is not about reorde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 08:41:42AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > and implement it to transform
> > result = op1 binop op2
> >
> > into
> >
> > tmp1 = op1
> > tmp2 = op2
> > result = tmp1 BINO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:47:49PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Likely r251949.
>
There are no changes within trans-intrinsic.c(gfc_conv_associa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:49:15PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
>
> kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:50:41AM +, angus at agibson dot me wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
>
> --- Comment #2 from Angus Gibson ---
> Changing the declaration of e to also b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:25:59AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> > Am I mistaken to read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85681
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:01:59PM +, luis.machado at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85681
>
> --- Comment #6 from Luis Machado ---
> Would you please confirm the boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85641
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:12:26PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> #31 0x008ad88d in gfc_code_walker (c=0x2ca231808,
> codefn=codefn@entry=0x8a90d0 void*)>,
> exprfn=exprfn@entry=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:53:27AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
>
> --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:54:05AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed, Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:47:34PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
>
> --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to G. Steinmetz f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:03:35AM +, mail at pietrodelugas dot it wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
>
> --- Comment #4 from Pietro Delugas ---
> a quick and dirty workaround is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:33:34PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> The code compiles with 6.4.0 and 7.3.0, but not with 6.4.1, 7.3.1,
> 8.0.1 and trunk (9.0). This is likely r258347 for gcc8, r258367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:46:59PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote:
>
> --- Comment #8 from G. Steinmetz ---
> > These should have a new PR opened for them.
> Done. This is now pr85506.
>
Thanks. I had inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:07:15AM +, francois.jacq at irsn dot fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
>
> --- Comment #3 from francois.jacq at irsn dot fr ---
> Notice that this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:00:45AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
>
> --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> When compiling the followin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:27:25PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
>
> --- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 07:53:14AM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> It works on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (including running it), but the ICE remains on
> i686-pc-linux-gnu.
>
Janne, thanks for checking. 2_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:44:25AM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from William Clodius ---
> FWIW I was told on comp.lang.fortran that the code is erroneous because of
>
> "The e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:23:32PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:11:29PM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote:
> > --- Comment #6 from William Clodius ---
> > My version of gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:15:57PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> >subroutine copy_byte_data(data, copy)
> >1
> > Error: Shape mismatch in argument 'data'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:11:29PM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from William Clodius ---
> My version of gfortran, 7.1, doesn’t give the first message, which is correct.
> The sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84891
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 08:01:17AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > I can't find anything in the Fortran2008 standard specifying how
> > arithmetic on intrinsic complex types work. CCing two Fortran maintainers
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84891
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:46:11AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84891
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:57:46PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
>
> --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Does it still fail for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:03:30PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
>
> --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I get
>
> pr58904.f90:5:4:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:11:30PM +, mdblack98 at yahoo dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
>
> --- Comment #5 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
> I've been using Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:57:08PM +, mdblack98 at yahoo dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
> I'll correct my reply in that using len > 1 outside of an interoperability
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:41:19AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Yep, gfortran is missing a simplification. When
> > simplification of size(a) occurs, the int(1) is
> > still an expression wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84778
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:16:19AM +, david.applegate at woodplc dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84778
>
> --- Comment #3 from david.applegate at woodplc dot com ---
> Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 06:28:24PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > I've removed the "known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:39:14PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > I believe the patch I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66128
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
I've worked out the issues with regression in the testsuite.
(Well, I think I have.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66128
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:31:42PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3)
> > Maybe some kind of "shortcut" (similar to Steve's fix for pr83998) can
> > solve this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84594
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:41:00PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> Do you at least agree that
>
> (a) || flag_default_real_10 || flag_default_real_16 should be added
> to flag_default_integer || f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84594
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:01:38PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84594
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > This is expected.
>
> Inde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:54:11PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> In addition, I don't understand why
>
> type t
> character :: z
> end type t
> type(t), parameter :: s(5) = t('a')
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 12:13:09AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> > Patched to mailing list.
>
> Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-01/msg00192.html which seems to
> have never been applie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84506
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:30:01AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> if (D.3772 < -some-reasonable-value || D.3772 > 2147483647)
> {
> inquire_parm.3.common.unit = -3;
> }
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84506
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:08:24AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> program TestInquire
>implicit none
>integer(8) :: iUnit
>integer(8) :: iPos
>open(newu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84506
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
The problem is related to UNIT.
program TestInquire
implicit none
integer(4) :: iUnit
integer(8) :: iPos
open(newunit=iunit, file='output.txt', access='stream', status='replace')
write(iUnit) 'T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84506
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
Upon closer inspection, gfortran's dump is correct
for both INTEGER and INTEGER(8) for
program TestInquire
integer :: iUnit, iPos
! integer(8) :: iUnit, iPos
open(newunit=iunit, file='output.txt', acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84504
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:15:24PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> > This appears to be related to PR44290.
>
> Are you sure about the PR?
>
Argh, fat fingers! r169948
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84495
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:44:07AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84495
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84389
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 03:56:14AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84389
>
> I think I prefer this patch, regression tested OK.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84389
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
This patch fixes the problem, but I'm in an area of
the compiler that I do not too well. It might open
gfortran to other problems. Jerry, any comments?
Index: io.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84389
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 09:04:24PM +, fortranfan at outlook dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84389
>
> --- Comment #2 from Vipul Parekh ---
> Thank for your response.
>
> Per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 02:20:20AM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
>
> Will keyword arguments in statement function references be retained as a GNU
> extension?
>
The extension will remain, but I in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:15:00PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find a prohibition in F2018 standard.
> > AFAICT, gfortran always supported keywords, and
> > I've developed a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:15:00PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from mecej4 ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #9)
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:52:03PM +, mecej4 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:52:03PM +, mecej4 at outlook dot com wrote:
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> > Ugh. Statement functions should be removed from the Standard.
> > The simply fix, of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
Ugh. Statement functions should be removed from the Standard.
The simply fix, of course, does not work if someone is clever
and uses keywords in a reference that involves a statement
function.
subroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 06:53:00PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I have a patch.
>
The patch is incomplete. If the actual and dummy arguments
type and type parameter match then, everything works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:26:50AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
>
> --- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
> Redu
501 - 600 of 1026 matches
Mail list logo
