[Bug fortran/51434] ICE with scalar init of an array parameter, used in DT default init with transfer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-07 02:17:48 UTC --- On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:25:00PM +, andy.nelson at lanl dot gov wrote: > > Any guess when this ICE might get some attention and into a release version? > Unfortunately, the only

[Bug fortran/51434] ICE with scalar init of an array parameter, used in DT default init with transfer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-06 15:59:17 UTC --- On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:40:07AM +, andy.nelson at lanl dot gov wrote: > > Can you recommend a better way to solve this problem, besides redefining the C > standard to accept 'scal

[Bug fortran/51434] ICE with scalar init of an array parameter, used in DT default init with transfer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-06 15:47:41 UTC --- On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:40:07AM +, andy.nelson at lanl dot gov wrote: > > character(c_char) :: raidnum(lenname) = & > & (/ 'r','a','i','d','n','u','m',. /) > > Is this wha

[Bug fortran/51434] internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-06 06:31:17 UTC --- On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:26:29AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Can you explain what you think the code is doing, > because I believe that it may not be doing what > you

[Bug testsuite/51057] FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O0 execution test on powerpc*-*-*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-03 23:36:01 UTC --- On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:15:32PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > (In reply to comment #5) > > It's not a long list if you XFAIL this for all ppc systems. > >You need somethin

[Bug testsuite/51057] FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O0 execution test on powerpc*-*-*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-03 22:24:30 UTC --- On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 10:01:22PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > > --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres > 2011-12-03 22:01:22 UTC --- > The main problem with this test

[Bug testsuite/51057] FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O0 execution test on powerpc*-*-*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-03 21:22:39 UTC --- On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 09:08:26PM +, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 > > --- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe 2011-12-03 > 21:08:26

[Bug testsuite/51057] FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O0 execution test on powerpc*-*-*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-03 20:46:36 UTC --- On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 08:36:43PM +, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 > > --- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2011-12-03 > 20:36:43

[Bug fortran/51308] PARAMETER attribute conflicts with SAVE attribute

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-28 13:58:02 UTC --- On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 07:51:02AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308 > > --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-28 > 07:51

[Bug fortran/51308] PARAMETER attribute conflicts with SAVE attribute

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-27 21:56:30 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 07:21:29PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > The problem comes about because of gen_special_c_interop_ptr() in > symbol.c has the following lines: > > /

[Bug fortran/51267] loop optimization error using LOC function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-25 15:58:34 UTC --- On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 09:37:15AM +, priv123 at hotmail dot fr wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 > > --- Comment #7 from Mathieu 2011-11-25 09:37:15 > UT

[Bug fortran/51267] loop optimization error using LOC function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-23 17:56:17 UTC --- On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:33:37AM +, priv123 at hotmail dot fr wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 > > > -fno-tree-ds seems to do the trick: from the C manua

[Bug fortran/51218] [4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug due to implicit_pure?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 --- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-21 20:21:01 UTC --- On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:02:20PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 > > --- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21 > 20:

[Bug fortran/51218] [4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug due to implicit_pure?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-19 16:18:18 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:46:28AM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 > > --- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-19 11:46:28 >

[Bug fortran/51218] [4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug due to implicit_pure?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-19 16:08:06 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:57:23AM +, tkoenig at netcologne dot de wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 > > --- Comment #10 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de

[Bug fortran/51218] [4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-19 03:47:39 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:40:49AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > The miscompilation is triggered by -ffrontend-optimize, work-around: use > > -fno-frontend-optimize. > > Rev

[Bug fortran/51208] [OOP] ALLOCATE with SOURCE= or MOLD=: Diagnose if variable occurs twice

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51208 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-18 19:49:32 UTC --- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:02:25PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51208 > > --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-18 > 19:02

[Bug fortran/51208] [OOP] ALLOCATE with SOURCE= or MOLD=: Diagnose if variable occurs twice

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51208 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-18 18:40:31 UTC --- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 04:03:04PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Well, it is not. One can restrict one to the common case of expr->expr_type == > EXPR_VARIABLE and just do

[Bug fortran/38312] Unexpected STATEMENT FUNCTION statement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38312 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-12 22:41:06 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:03:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-12 22:03:49 UTC --- > I've looked at this issue, and I

[Bug fortran/51103] configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51103 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-12 17:58:18 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:53:39PM +, richalewis at gmail dot com wrote: > This is what I originally did: > > 1. tar xvjf gcc-4.6.2.tar.bz > 2. mkdir build > 3. ../gcc-4.6.2/config

[Bug fortran/51103] configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51103 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-12 17:29:38 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:22:42PM +, richalewis at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51103 > > --- Comment #9 from Richard Lewis 2011-11-12 > 17

[Bug fortran/51103] configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51103 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-12 16:52:37 UTC --- On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 02:51:32PM +, richalewis at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51103 > > --- Comment #7 from Richard Lewis 2011-11-12 > 14:

[Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426 --- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-07 19:49:39 UTC --- On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:25:32PM +, inform at tiker dot net wrote: > --- Comment #15 from Andreas Kloeckner 2011-11-07 > 19:25:32 UTC --- > Zydrunas and I have successfully comp

[Bug target/50952] libquad relocation R_X86_64_32S failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-04 23:01:13 UTC --- On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 05:57:15AM +, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote: > > > > Anyone know how to fix this issue properly? > > > > Yes, just update in-tree libtool: > Sorry, I

[Bug fortran/50937] STAT option with ALLOCATE statement on large arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-31 21:02:52 UTC --- On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 08:17:51PM +, fwi at inducks dot org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937 > > --- Comment #8 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-10-31 20:

[Bug fortran/50937] STAT option with ALLOCATE statement on large arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-31 19:50:41 UTC --- On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 07:25:38PM +, fwi at inducks dot org wrote: > > Has the bug been corrected in recent versions of gfortran, or do you really > mean it's OK that gfortran clai

[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-29 16:51:10 UTC --- On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:17:19PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > >From c.l.f: > > Unfortunately, I also found that gfortran has interpreted something like > > namelist /

[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-29 16:49:38 UTC --- On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 02:47:52PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > One might argue that a "SAVE namelist-group-name" should mean that all > > namelist-group-objects associate

[Bug other/50900] 'gmake pdf' fails in libiberty

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-28 23:18:46 UTC --- On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:53:26PM +, karl at freefriends dot org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 > > --- Comment #9 from karl at freefriends dot org 201

[Bug other/50900] 'gmake pdf' fails in libiberty

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-28 22:50:49 UTC --- On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:19:02PM +, karl at freefriends dot org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 > > karl at freefriends dot org changed: > >

[Bug other/50900] 'gmake pdf' fails in libiberty

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-28 20:34:17 UTC --- On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 08:15:34PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > 2011-02-14 Karl Berry > > * doc/texinfo.tex (\sectionheading): check that we are not in an > environm

[Bug other/50900] 'gmake pdf' fails in libiberty

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-28 19:02:20 UTC --- On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 06:33:57PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 > > --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-28 > 18:33:57

[Bug other/50900] 'gmake pdf' fails in libiberty

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-28 18:22:43 UTC --- On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:28:54PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900 > > --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-28 > 17:28:54

[Bug fortran/50753] dshiftl/dshiftr: Rejects valid BOZ, accepts double BOZ

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50753 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-27 15:56:35 UTC --- On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:49:15PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > > "Arguments. > > > > I shall be of type integer or a boz-literal-constant. > > J shall be of type

[Bug fortran/50821] [4.7 Regression] 3 new GCC HEAD@180266 regressions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50821 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl 2011-10-21 17:43:31 UTC --- On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:41:00PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > The errors are > > [macbook] f90/bug% gfc > /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/g77/f90-intrinsic-bit.f

[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT & ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-28 19:45:48 UTC --- On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:20:40AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514 > > --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-28 > 09:20:

[Bug testsuite/50487] FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50487 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-22 18:35:09 UTC --- On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 06:22:25PM +, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50487 > > --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-22 18:22:25 > U

[Bug testsuite/50487] FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50487 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-22 18:19:07 UTC --- On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 06:16:35PM +, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50487 > > H.J. Lu changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/50407] compiler confused by .operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-16 14:42:31 UTC --- On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:44:37PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 > > --- Comment #12 from St

[Bug fortran/50407] compiler confused by .operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-16 12:44:37 UTC --- On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 07:22:09AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote: > > To me, it looks like the parser does not handle correctly the format > specification as a default-char-expr

[Bug fortran/50407] compiler confused by .operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-15 23:05:25 UTC --- On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > putting a fairly ugly hack into match_dt_format to > skip statement lable matchi

[Bug fortran/50407] compiler confused by .operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-15 22:53:17 UTC --- On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:32:41PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:21:42PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: > > > &g

[Bug fortran/50407] compiler confused by .operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-15 21:32:41 UTC --- On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:21:42PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: > > When you put parentheses around the expressions, > like (2.ip.8), then the code compiles. > > This is also wha

[Bug fortran/50407] compiler confused by .operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-15 21:13:16 UTC --- On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:21:04PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407 > > --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15 > 20:21:

[Bug fortran/50378] MALLOC_CHECK_ glibc detects free() invalid pointer in compiler

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-13 20:14:33 UTC --- On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 08:08:33PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378 > > --- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-13 > 20:08:

[Bug fortran/49149] Dependency autogeneration with `-M` rendered useless by requiring .mod files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-31 23:05:10 UTC --- On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34:46PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote: > Additionally, if my entire premise is wrong what do you anticipate the use of > the -M flag will be for? It'

[Bug fortran/49149] Dependency autogeneration with `-M` rendered useless by requiring .mod files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-31 22:45:41 UTC --- On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:27:40PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149 > > --- Comment #8 from Zaak 2011-08-31 22:27:40 UTC >

[Bug fortran/49149] Dependency autogeneration with `-M` rendered useless by requiring .mod files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-31 22:17:48 UTC --- On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:01:06PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote: > > I hope you are less confused now. > I'm not confused. I do, however, use the grey matter between my ear

[Bug fortran/45170] [F2003] allocatable character lengths

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 --- Comment #31 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-30 19:31:25 UTC --- On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:46:42PM +, damian at rouson dot net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 > > --- Comment #30 from Damian Rouson 2011-08-30 > 18:4

[Bug fortran/45170] [F2003] allocatable character lengths

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 --- Comment #27 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-29 16:22:16 UTC --- On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 06:47:41AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 > > --- Comment #26 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-29 > 06:

[Bug fortran/50201] gfortran with -static causes seg fault at runtime for writing double prec array with precision increased to kind=16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50201 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-26 21:29:41 UTC --- On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:09:42PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > ==4791== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) > ==479

[Bug fortran/50201] gfortran with -static causes seg fault at runtime for writing double prec array with precision increased to kind=16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50201 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-26 21:09:42 UTC --- On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:00:04PM +, longb at cray dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50201 > > --- Comment #2 from Bill Long 2011-08-26 21:00:04 UTC >

[Bug fortran/45170] [F2003] allocatable character lengths

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 --- Comment #24 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-26 17:23:11 UTC --- On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:05:32AM +, boschmann at tp1 dot physik.uni-siegen.de wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 > > --- Comment #23 from Hans-Werner Bosc

[Bug fortran/50046] Hexadecimal Constants

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-11 20:18:29 UTC --- On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:57:39PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > (In reply to comment #0) > > ''X had be changed to -65536 to successfully compile. > > > Accordi

[Bug fortran/45170] [F2003] allocatable character lengths

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 --- Comment #22 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-09 05:09:13 UTC --- On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:26:49AM +, damian at rouson dot net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 > > --- Comment #21 from Damian Rouson 2011-08-09 > 04:2

[Bug fortran/47659] -Wconversion[-extra] should emit warning for constant expressions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47659 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-08 14:50:33 UTC --- On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 06:07:36AM +, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47659 > > --- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich > 201

[Bug libfortran/49970] "make prefix=... install" doesn't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49970 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-08-03 19:09:22 UTC --- On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 07:01:55PM +, jimis at gmx dot net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49970 > > --- Comment #2 from jimis 2011-08-03 19:01:51 UTC --- > I

[Bug libfortran/49791] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Formatted namelist reads fails with: Cannot match namelist object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-07-20 21:22:36 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #3) >> If the bug reporter can, I think he should convert all the input >> files to the Fortran 90 syntax of namelists. However, one needs >> to be careful to not

[Bug libfortran/49791] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Formatted namelist reads fails with: Cannot match namelist object

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-07-20 17:15:19 UTC --- On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:18:01PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791 > > --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-20 > 16:16

[Bug fortran/45170] [F2003] allocatable character lengths

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl 2011-07-12 14:19:24 UTC --- On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:51:40PM +, boschmann at tp1 dot physik.uni-siegen.de wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170 > > Hans-Werner Boschmann changed: > >

[Bug fortran/40054] [F08] Pointer functions as lvalue

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40054 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl 2011-07-03 17:12:15 UTC --- On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 04:25:39PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40054 > > --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-0

[Bug fortran/49509] cannot promote types for arguments passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-23 04:22:51 UTC --- On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:13:19PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Feel free to post to comp.lang.c about the issue. The > technical editor of F2003 routinely answers questions > about

[Bug fortran/49509] cannot promote types for arguments passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-23 04:13:49 UTC --- On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:23:26AM +, stevenj at alum dot mit.edu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 > > --- Comment #4 from stevenj at alum dot mit.edu 2011

[Bug fortran/49509] cannot promote types for arguments passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-23 04:02:38 UTC --- On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:01:04AM +, stevenj at alum dot mit.edu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 > > --- Comment #3 from stevenj at alum dot mit.edu 2011

[Bug fortran/49509] cannot promote types for arguments passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-23 04:01:49 UTC --- On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:55:20AM +, stevenj at alum dot mit.edu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509 > > --- Comment #2 from stevenj at alum dot mit.edu 2011

[Bug fortran/49431] is it illegal?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49431 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-16 22:58:44 UTC --- On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:32:08PM +, linuxl4 at sohu dot com wrote: > > >real :: D2R = 0.017453292519943 ! <--- here > > I know this. I just wonder > > real D2R = 0.01745329

[Bug fortran/49438] error during make

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49438 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-16 17:52:39 UTC --- On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 05:36:35PM +, eisoab at gmail dot com wrote: > > > What is the configure command line you used to configure > > the gcc? > > > > > nothing. just ../confi

[Bug fortran/49271] Compiler crashed and asked me to submit a report

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49271 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-04 15:56:35 UTC --- On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:09:06AM +, coml4 at san dot rr.com wrote: > I will be happy to update the compiler. I very recently downloaded the latest > one that was labeled "Stable R

[Bug fortran/49271] Compiler crashed and asked me to submit a report

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49271 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-03 21:59:43 UTC --- On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:50:46PM +, coml4 at san dot rr.com wrote: > > gcc version 4.5.0 20090604 (experimental) [trunk revision 148180] (GCC) > You may be hitting an old bug. 2

[Bug fortran/49278] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl 2011-06-03 18:10:40 UTC --- On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 04:08:05PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 > > Reduced testcase. > > module oad_active >implicit

[Bug fortran/49110] Deferred-length character result triggers (false positive) error for pure procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49110 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-22 21:30:07 UTC --- On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 08:03:32PM +, jwmwalrus at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49110 > > --- Comment #10 from John 2011-05-22 19:36:33 > UT

[Bug fortran/49110] Deferred-length character result triggers (false positive) error for pure procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49110 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-22 17:11:03 UTC --- On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:57:44PM +, jwmwalrus at gmail dot com wrote: > > This patch allows your code to compile, but I > > don't know if it works correctly. Do you have > > a co

[Bug fortran/49010] Result of MOD and MODULO intrinsic has wrong sign

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-17 14:50:52 UTC --- On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:17:22PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > So does the fallback path actually ever get used? AFAICS the builtins are > always available, and if the built

[Bug fortran/49010] Result of MOD and MODULO intrinsic has wrong sign

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-17 14:02:11 UTC --- On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:05:50AM +, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote: > --- Comment #5 from Thomas Henlich > 2011-05-17 05:51:56 UTC --- > The fmod behaviour is correc

[Bug fortran/49010] Result of MOD and MODULO intrinsic has wrong sign

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-16 21:43:57 UTC --- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 09:31:57PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > In F95, one finds "P = 0, the result is processor dependent." > > In F

[Bug fortran/49010] Result of MOD and MODULO intrinsic has wrong sign

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-16 21:17:44 UTC --- There is an additional problem with MOD(A,P) and MODULO(A,P). In F95, one finds "P = 0, the result is processor dependent." In F2003 and F2008, one finds "P shall not be zero." Consid

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-13 14:49:52 UTC --- On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:10:42AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > + if (mpfr_nan_p (x->value.real) != 0 || mpfr_inf_p (x->value.real) != 0) > +{ > + mpfr_set (re

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-12 20:53:37 UTC --- On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:40:48PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to comment #7) > > + return range_check (result, "FRACTION"); > > Can we additionally add to

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-12 20:54:38 UTC --- Forgot the diff Index: simplify.c === --- simplify.c (revision 173705) +++ simplify.c (working copy) @@ -2328,6 +2328,

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-12 20:10:19 UTC --- Here's a better patch that gets the warning/error messages correct. Index: simplify.c === --- simplify.c (revision 17370

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-12 19:18:16 UTC --- On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:03:34PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 > > --- Comment #5 from St

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-12 18:47:54 UTC --- On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:59:44PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Whether this really is a bug or not depends on whether one thinks that a > > standard-compliant Fortran pro

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-05-12 18:21:46 UTC --- On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:53:10PM +, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 > > --- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich > 201

[Bug fortran/48720] quad precision literals do not work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48720 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-04-22 15:16:02 UTC --- On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 08:00:33AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:47:03PM +, jvdelisle at frontier dot com wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi

[Bug fortran/48720] quad precision literals do not work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48720 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-04-22 15:00:50 UTC --- On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:47:03PM +, jvdelisle at frontier dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48720 > > --- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com

[Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl 2011-04-15 16:59:41 UTC --- On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:41:06PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Steve, I can clean this up but i am not clear on copyright assignment. Any > issues on this? The patch

[Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-04-15 16:02:17 UTC --- On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:29:36PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > I have looked over the patch. I need to do some tests and I have about three > bugs in front of this

[Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-04-03 20:33:12 UTC --- On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:49:53PM +, inform at tiker dot net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426 > > --- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloeckner 2011-04-03 > 19:

[Bug fortran/47984] Pointer dummy argument mismatch not detected by Fortran compiler

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47984 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl 2011-03-04 19:16:27 UTC --- On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 06:58:19PM +, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47984 > > --- Comment #3 from Thomas Henlich > 201

[Bug libfortran/47945] REAL(8) output conversion error on MinGW32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945 --- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl 2011-03-02 18:17:30 UTC --- On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:02:22PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945 > > --- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2011-03-02 > 18:

[Bug fortran/47633] Result of COMPILER_VERSION() has NULL byte appended

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-02-13 00:05:09 UTC --- On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:29:47PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633 > > Thomas Koenig changed: > >What|Remo

[Bug fortran/47692] Numeric inaccuracy reported in testing lapack-3.3.0 BLAS module

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-02-11 20:23:14 UTC --- On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:56:05PM +, jrt at worldlinc dot net wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692 > > --- Comment #6 from John T 2011-02-11 19:56:02 UTC >

[Bug target/47032] libgfortran references complex long double functions missing on AIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47032 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl 2011-02-08 20:49:04 UTC --- On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 08:43:33PM +, pogma at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #8 from Peter O'Gorman 2011-02-08 > 20:43:18 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to

[Bug fortran/47633] Result of COMPILER_VERSION() has NULL byte appended

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl 2011-02-07 19:19:37 UTC --- On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:58:39PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633 > > > if (ichar(v(n:n)) /= 41 .or. ichar(v(n+1:n+1)) /

[Bug fortran/47633] Result of COMPILER_VERSION() has NULL byte appended

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-02-07 17:43:25 UTC --- On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 04:12:00PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Remove

[Bug fortran/47613] [4.6 Regression] namelist read with -static

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl 2011-02-05 18:11:02 UTC --- On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 05:59:49PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613 > > --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-0

[Bug fortran/47295] libquadmath: List __complex128 and constants in the .texi file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47295 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-01-15 21:56:40 UTC --- On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 05:55:36PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47295 > > --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-15 > 17:55

[Bug c/47146] Floating point to integer conversions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47146 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl 2011-01-03 18:01:11 UTC --- On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 05:12:10PM +, babelart at yahoo dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47146 > > Sorry, I was not specific enough. It is the integer co

[Bug target/47032] libgfortran references complex long double functions missing on AIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47032 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2010-12-21 18:37:21 UTC --- On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 05:07:53PM +, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > This is an interaction / assumption problem between the target (AIX) and > libgfortran. libgfortran previously

[Bug fortran/47007] Values from namelist file should not depend on locale settings

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl 2010-12-20 14:48:03 UTC --- On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:04:14PM +, fenixk19 at mail dot ru wrote: > There is internal variants of strtof/strtod/strtold/etc functions in glibc, > that allow explicitly set locale

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >