https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #29 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5abd1cb9160619721336ed800779a01548231f1
commit r11-461-ge5abd1cb9160619721336ed800779a01548231f1
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A patch based on comment#15 has been posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054321.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #27 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 06:39:24PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
>
> --- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to wschmidt from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to wschmidt from comment #24)
> I'm afraid I disagree. A divide-by-zero that cannot ever be executed is
> not an error.
Well, there is PR90302. We could insert some piece of code into the
IL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
But I'm not going to worry about it further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #24 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
On 5/14/20 12:08 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
>
> --- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:57:37PM +, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #21 from Bill Seurer ---
We can't modify the spec code but we can add "compatibility" options.
Shouldn't the if test make the compiler ignore the statement with the divide by
zero? It shouldn't ever be executed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #19)
> There's some stuff above this in the module but this is the part that shows
> the error and I think it contains all the declarations.
>
> subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #19 from Bill Seurer ---
There's some stuff above this in the module but this is the part that shows the
error and I think it contains all the declarations.
subroutine Z()
real(r8) :: cld(99,99)
real(r8) cldeps
parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #18 from Bill Seurer ---
I am still cutting down the code but this should answer the question about if
it really could be zero:
if (cldeps > 0) then
do k = k1,k2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #17 from Bill Seurer ---
he patch works and has no further fallout that I see.
I will still try to extract something small from that big fortran function but
as I have not written any fortran code in more than 35 years it may take a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #16 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:43:54PM +, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
>
> --- Comment #13 from Bill Seurer ---
> I don't know fortran and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #13 from Bill Seurer ---
I don't know fortran and this appears to be part of a multi-thousand line
extremely complex function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #11)
> /home/seurer/gcc/git/install/gcc-test/bin/gfortran -c -o
> module_ra_cam.fppized.o -I. -I./netcdf/include -I./inc -m64 -O0 -g3
> -mcpu=power8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #11 from Bill Seurer ---
/home/seurer/gcc/git/install/gcc-test/bin/gfortran -c -o
module_ra_cam.fppized.o -I. -I./netcdf/include -I./inc -m64 -O0 -g3
-mcpu=power8 -Wno-deprecated-declarations -fconvert=big-endian -std=legacy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #10 from Bill Seurer ---
I tried the update on the spec 2000/2006 tests that were ICEing before and they
compile now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1422c2e4462c9b7c44aa035ac56af77565556181
commit r11-288-g1422c2e4462c9b7c44aa035ac56af77565556181
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-11
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Just as a quick cross check: the 10.1 release works without problems, so this
indeed must have been introduced in one of the earliest commits after the 10.1
was branched off.
28 matches
Mail list logo
