--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22 13:37
---
Yes. Thanks for reminding me.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-20
22:46 ---
This is now fixed, right?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178
--- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot
uni-muenchen dot de 2005-05-22 18:10 ---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
Tobias Schlüter wrote:
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
22:23 ---
Fixed on
--- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot
uni-muenchen dot de 2005-05-18 11:19 ---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl wrote:
--- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10 22:23
---
Fixed on the mainline. I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
default on the
--- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2005-05-15 11:32 ---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
22:23 ---
Fixed
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
22:07 ---
Subject: Bug 20178
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-10 22:06:55
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog gfortran.h invoke.texi
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10 22:23
---
Fixed on the mainline. I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
default on the branch).
--
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05 15:33
---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-03/msg00060.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-04 11:27
---
- a simpler compiler
- simpler interfacing with C code
- less excess precision problems with floating point returns (REAL*4 returns are
not returned as REAL*8)
- faster executables
- we'll never get this if we
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-04 11:40
---
BTW, most (if not all) of the affected functions in BLAS / LAPACK are auxiliary
functions, i.e. are only called from within those libraries. Changing the
interface will only affect functions called from the
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 20:51
---
Working on this.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tobi
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 21:36
---
BTW I will also propose a patch to make -fno-second-underscore the default, once
this is fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-03-03 21:49
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
BTW I will also propose a patch to make -fno-second-underscore the
default, once this is
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 22:06
---
I agree with you that -ff2c should imply -fsecond-underscore. I don't agree
that the advantages of -ff2c outweigh the disadvantages of -fno-f2c so far that
-fno-f2c should be the default. If we don't switch
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-03-04 04:44
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I agree with you that -ff2c should imply -fsecond-underscore. I don't
agree that the
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-03-04 04:46
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
Just to be clear, what exactly do you feel are the concrete practical
advantages to -ff2c?
(Sorry, I mean -fno-f2c. The practical advantages to
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27 18:43
---
Upgraded to normal severity, interoperability with g77 is important.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23
19:02 ---
Yes we know about this and it will not be fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 19:47
---
Have 'we' ever agreed not to fix this? I would be interested in the rationale
given at that time. The issue Steven raises is important, even if there are
only four functions returning COMPLEX in BLAS: cdotc,
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 20:11
---
g77's documentation of the calling convention:
`-fno-f2c'
Do not generate code designed to be compatible with code generated
by `f2c' use the GNU calling conventions instead.
The `f2c' calling
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 20:28
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
I confirm that it works when you compile arg1.f with -fno-f2c:
g77 -fno-f2c -c arg1.f
gfortran arg1tst.f arg1.o -o arg1tst
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23
20:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
However, this doesn't really alter the basic question of why you are
changing the default calling conventions.
Well chaning to be more target's C like (because that is what
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23
20:31 ---
And gfortran is totally new front-end, written from scratch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 20:43
---
(In reply to comment #4)
However, this doesn't really alter the basic question of why you are
changing the default calling conventions.
You could call it an oversight. The -fno-f2c calling convention is
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 20:44
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Well chaning to be more target's C like (because that is what gfortran
uses now) ABI.
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 20:46
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
And gfortran is totally new front-end, written from scratch.
Obviously. That doesn't
30 matches
Mail list logo
