http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58851
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
I had changed the testcase to:
! { dg-do run }
!
! PR fortran/58793
!
! Contributed by Vladimir Fuka
!
! Had the wrong value for the storage_size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58851
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Tobias,
I cannot get to the commit until Sunday night at earliest. Thus, if
you can do it, that would be great. In fact, if you do that, I'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58851
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Oh damn! Tobias pointed this out to me and I didn't catch on to why
this could happen. I'll fix it tonight.
Sorry about that
Paul
On 30 October
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58851
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Thanks Tobias,
I was completely perplexed by that - you beat me to the reply by 32 minutes :-)
Cheers
Paul
On 4 November 2013 19:39, burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #64 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-09-10 10:00:09 UTC ---
Seconded! In return, I promise that, as soon as I have time, I'll
update to 21st century tools :-)
Thanks
Paul
On 9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-09-10 13:10:30 UTC ---
Dear Janus,
Thanks for dealing with that.
Cheers
Paul
On 10 September 2012 14:14, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-09-24 15:28:52 UTC ---
Looks good to me - why did this pop up now?
On 24 September 2012 16:04, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
gcc-bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2013-03-03 18:09:08 UTC ---
Thanks Mikael,
I have been in the middle of one of my no gfortran periods. I am
back in France next week
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52227
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-07-13 15:10:52 UTC ---
Hmmm! OK - I guess that we need
class_pointer/class_target/class_allocatable attributes that are
retained by the symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61780
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Richie,
Thanks for doing that. I was going to do 4.8 as soon as I had a
moment and would have changed the summary then. As it happens, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #32 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
The problem is due to:
atmp.10.offset = 0;
{
integer(kind=8) S.12;
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #34 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dominique,
Should one be getting false? It seems to me that the code looks right.
within the do loop:
new_prt_spec ([string_t's]) produces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59414
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
I hadn't forgotten - I will be back in France tomorrow night and will deal
with it then.
Cheers
Paul
On Jan 26, 2014 3:31 PM, mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
The patch submission (1st February) said:
That must be one of the fastest reviews on record!
Committed as revision 207389
4.7 and 4.8 to follow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
I propose to add the attached to the testsuite. It is the testcase
from PR60066, which was fixed by the patch for PR59066.
OK for trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
Thanks for the heads-up about -m32 - I thought that the code would be
immune to word length changes ***sigh***
Cheers
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Tobias,
I tried giving rng_t a component to avoid that - it didn't work :-(
Cheers
Paul
On 22 February 2014 16:35, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
A further small remark, when the explicit interface for obs1_int is
turned to a subroutine, everything works perfectly. I am homing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #12 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Tobias,
I think that I have see the light! In a particularly uninteresting
part of our Board Meeting, I took a look at the Doxygen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61780
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
I didn't see your posting, which was about an hour before mine. At
least we came to the same conclusion!
Thanks
Paul
On 12 July
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #19 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-11-07 11:00:47 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
I have been keeping out of this for the time being because I want to
get some of the final OOP array issues
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #23 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-11-10 11:09:02 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
I tried this, in the hope of fixing a problem that I have with the
last big part of the class array patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51529
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-12-14 08:55:08 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
However, I do now understand why one needs for SOURCE= to memset the source to
NULL - at least as long _copy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #36 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-10-04 16:04:48 UTC ---
Dear Michael,
I agree - we need the most up to date version to be (re-)submitted. I
will review it.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #38 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-10-05 06:40:45 UTC ---
Dear Mikael,
Very good - I'll give it urgent attention as soon as it appears.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:56
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-10-05 14:35:14 UTC ---
Dear Tobias and Dominique,
We could fix this in 4.7 by adding a sm field to array descriptors.
If we added the sm field
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #44 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-10-09 09:48:00 UTC ---
Dear Mikael,
I have duly loaded up your patch - it looks very slick and
professional; it even works as intended
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
--- Comment #32 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-19 15:07:03 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
Aha, you have taken the simple route of modifying trans-decl.c and not the
whole module reading apparatus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #16 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-21 08:25:51 UTC ---
Dear Mikael,
snip
Actually none of the gfc_compare_type/gfc_TK_compatible changes are absolutely
necessary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47846
--- Comment #1 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-22 10:09:57 UTC ---
Jerry,
You are not the only one :-)
Tobias, I'll take a look-see tonight.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:31 AM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44352
--- Comment #14 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-28 06:47:38 UTC ---
Dear Mikael,
It needs the backporting that Thomas suggested. I have been away from
home for a bit and so have not had
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-03-11 15:51:31 UTC ---
Janus,
That looks like the right way to go. Do you understand how this can
be a regression, whilst the correct interface
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #12 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-03-12 16:07:47 UTC ---
Ha! That's what I suspected.
Good. I'll OK the submission.
Thanks
Paul
PS I'll keep quiet about it being a bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-05-16 12:48:32 UTC ---
Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
Structurally the patch is OK.
Cheers
Paul
On Mon, May 16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-05-24 09:43:32 UTC ---
Dear Thomas,
With your patch, what is the difference between GFC_CAN_REVERSE
and GFC_REVERSE_NOT_SET?
Perhaps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47516
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-06-18 08:45:08 UTC ---
Dear All,
It was never there for me :-)
Yes, please close it.
Cheers
Paul
On 6/17/11, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-01-22 16:50:00 UTC ---
Dear Thomas,
Paul, this is a case of something (trans-*?) picking up the
wrong string length and ignoring the substring
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47516
--- Comment #1 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-01-28 15:14:24 UTC ---
gcc version 4.5.0 20100604??? version is marked as 4.6.0
Paul
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:59 PM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47519
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-01-31 07:26:23 UTC ---
This is regtesting as I right but I am sure that it is good.
That does indeed regtest OK.
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47592
--- Comment #1 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-03 07:43:13 UTC ---
Hi Thomas,
I was aware of the potential for functions with side effects to screw
up ALLOCATE with source. I believe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-10 05:24:24 UTC ---
Dear Janus,
Apparently it's not needed, since removing the line does not introduce any
regressions in the testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-02-14 13:08:13 UTC ---
Tobias,
You shame me - I undertook to do something with this one and did not.
I do not know that the fix is compatible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #18 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2010-11-16 15:04:39 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
If my understanding is correct, we can either try to extend the 'span' hack to
make it work for more cases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46678
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2010-12-02 13:33:38 UTC ---
Semms to me that Jerry should do the honours :-)
Paul
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-01-31 08:23:18 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
Thanks for fixing the more pressing issue.
(I think the other issue - second item in comment 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52265
--- Comment #1 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-02-16 06:58:10 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
I have encountered this in the work on PR41600. I thought to append a
numeric identifier that increments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63553
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33834|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33995|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
By the way, the patch of comment 8 bootstraps and regtests OK
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
However, it is a patch that doesn't do the job.
Cheers
Paul
On Dec 26, 2014 2:35 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #12 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
As I just said on #gfortran, the previous explanation is wrong. The
problem is that, for the mold= case with no default initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
For some reason, the hash values are different in the vtable and the
TYPE IS. I had always worried that that we would have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Mikael,
Yes, you will see from my comment on the PR that I had come to the
same conclusion. However, rather than take PR62044 as a place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
It would be nice to commit this tonight, if possible. An impetus to do
this is added by Dominique pointing out that it fixes PRs 59765
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
This fixes the other part of the problem:
*** gfc_trans_pointer_assignment (gfc_expr *
*** 6917,6922
--- 7033,7039
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Committed to trunk as revision 219818. Change logs correct in 219819.
Sorry for the mess.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
The incorrect PR numbers in the Change Logs have been corrected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #14 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Ignore comment 13! I screwed up the Change Logs for PR57959.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
AFAICT gfortran.dg/unlimited_polymorphic_21.f90 has not yet been committed.
You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63553
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
For sure. Please do.
Thanks
Paul
On 11 February 2015 at 18:25, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Uros and Dominique,
I'll try to get to this when I can. I have a horrible feeling that it
is the old problem of array constructors within
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
Happy New Year! I have been away in Claifornia these last few weeks and
just got back last night.
I am working with Andre on pr60255
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Tobias,
Thanks. I found one or two similar testcases that still fail. As soon
as I find some time, I will submit a complete fix.
How
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
The pureness is also confused by the C pure, which is whiter than
white pure. I agree with your last remark about the standards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Ah that's a pity. I thought that 5.0 had closed when Tobias was
panicking about his co-array patch. I didn't think to check.
Cheers
Paul
On 17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Mikael,
It looks like my finger slipped on the mouse wheel - I'll put it right tonight.
Thanks
Paul
On 4 August 2015 at 11:27, mikael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Salvatore,
If you could reduce the source that produces this error for me, I
would be grateful. By the looks of it, the name mangling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
I have been working my through my backlog of patches/PRs as you might
have noticed. This one, being a regression is next but two :-)
Cheers
Paul
On 27 October 2015 at 18:30, dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
That is entirely possible. I concentrated exclusively on reshape. I
will have a look at the original problem later.
Thanks a lot
Paul
On 28 October 2015 at 18:24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for the heads up.
There is something wierd going on here - There is no sign of this
error on my system. Obviously, I will remove the testcase this evening
and will try to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68243
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Sorry! Wrong PR.
On 8 November 2015 at 11:18, pault at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68243
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
That's odd, it does fine with reshape on my machine sigh
Could you send me the error, please?
pack generates a completely new ICE in the most peculiar place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68216
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
I think that a meta-bug would be an excellent idea. I am 5
regressions away from a fix for this PR. I'll get the patch to you
over the weekend.
Many thanks for your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dominique,
I was about to close this one right now :-)
Thanks
Paul
On 18 October 2015 at 22:54, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi David,
Yes it does. Thank you for bring this PR to my attention. I'll mark it
appropriately.
Cheers
Paul
On 19 October 2015 at 13:42, davidgkinniburgh at yahoo dot co.uk
<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67174
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Rainer,
I am not so sure that it is a kernel bug but, rather, it could be a
gcc bug that is affected by differences in the kernel. It seems to me
that this has crept in since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
We need to get an lto expert to take a look.
Cheers
Paul
On 6 September 2015 at 03:13, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Fixed as 'obvious' in revision: 228169.
Cheers
Paul
2013-09-26 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/67567
* resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure): For module proc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68676
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
As promised, I am working to fix this. Thanks for your contributions.
Paul
On 4 December 2015 at 10:59, ubizjak at gmail dot com
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779
--- Comment #18 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
It works for me - a mystery for tomorrow :-)
Paul
On 29 December 2015 at 23:10, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #27 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
...so ragged in fact that it fails at all levels of optimization I
have not had time these last days to come back to it and understand
why. Something for the holidays!
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
When I have a moment, I intend to fix 5- and 6-branches.
Cheers
Paul
On 22 June 2016 at 16:12, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Ian,
Aaah, OK. I was rather impressed by what you had done with the first bug :-)
For some reason, one of the symbols is not being committed. I will try
and figure out why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Janus,
It's good to hear from you.
As you will have seen, I have posted a fix for the first problem and
have another fix in the pipeline for the problem in comment #5.
I'll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #14 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
Would you be so good as to OK this patch to the list?
Thanks
Paul
On 22 January 2016 at 12:50, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
--- Comment #2 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Thanks Thomas! Sorry that I missed your PR.
I wonder what, if anything, we should do about it?
Cheers
Paul
On 16 February 2016 at 11:54, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dominiq,
It works for me on 5-branch and trunk. Confirmed fixed :-)
Cheers
Paul
On 21 February 2016 at 17:12, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71883
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Steve,
Thanks, you beat me to it!
Cheers
Paul
PS Since I caused this regression, perhaps I should take it on :-)
On 22 July 2016 at 16:45, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
With one thing and another, I completely forgot about the backport.
Yes, please do. I am not able to do commits fo the next week.
Thanks
Paul
On 30 July 2016 at 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dominique,
You are quite right about the revision that fixes this PR, whose
existence I hadn't noticed. Thanks for closing it.
Cheers
Paul
On 5 August 2016 at 14:13, dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Walt,
My reading of the situation is that since, in this version, the
generic procedure is typebound in a public derived type, the PUBLIC
attribute is already accorded it. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71838
--- Comment #14 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Anton,
Did you take on board that it is the procedure dummy argument that
causes the problem?
A viable workaround is to:
s/procedure( cgca_clvgs_abstract ) :: sub/external :: sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77390
--- Comment #2 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
I don't think that the problems are connected. I am having a problem
with a vtable that gets generated in a submodule and so has an address
different from
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
