https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 01:32:56PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> However, I'd like to look at the code first and check if we
> can actually accommodate this strange behavior without pessimizing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:40:14PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> --- snip ---
> >
> > Of course, I could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 03:49:48AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> OK yes we are not doing anything with the return values of the calls to
> 'remove'.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 09:56:48PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > The second one appears to be OK.
>
> The second one is invalid.
>
> f2008:C565
> A data-stmt-object or data-i-do-object shall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:33:52PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
>
> --- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 08:06:44PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> See pr31249.
>
Don't see th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 08:47:50PM +, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
> This looks like a target issue, gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 05:52:34PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 45589
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45589&action=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:46:14PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
>
> --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Fri, Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:10:45PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> Jakub,
>
> Your patch may also fix PR83246
>
Add PR82009 as possibly related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:25:31PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I'll include the PR83246 testcase (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:10:25PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
>
> Yes, it seems to be a target issue. It's i585-*-fre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:50:55PM +, andreast at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> --- Comment #10 from Andreas Tobler ---
> I can confirm this finding with
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=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=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=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=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 #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=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=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=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=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=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=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 #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=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=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 #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=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=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 #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 #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=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=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=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=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=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=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=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 #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=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 #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=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=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=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=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=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=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=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=91160
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 09:49:31AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Fortran allows the arguments of merge_bits() to be BOZ literal constants.
> > m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:04:17PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This change appears to break FreeBSD as well. See
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg03699.html
>
Yep, Verified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:30:04AM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> Should be fixed now.
>
Thanks! I can comfirm the issue is fixed on FreeBSD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91337
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 03:14:57PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Chinoune from comment #0)
> > I have encountered some underflows/overf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:44:31PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> The code is invalid.
>
> Free-form source code requires whitespace after "DATA".
>
So my reading to
R837 data-stmt is DATA da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:37:25AM +, briantcarcich at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> The issue is that this *is* a bug in GFORTRAN.
>
I never claimed that it wasn't a bug.
PS: The name of the compiler is gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 08:33:04PM +, koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm still working on it (slowly, though, sorry :( ). Here is a diff of my
> current trunk. I don't know what exactly chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91471
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 08:04:23AM +, SameeranJayant.Joshi at amd dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91471
>
> --- Comment #2 from Sameeran Joshi ---
> (In reply to kargl from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:12:47PM +, manfred99 at gmx dot ch wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Manfred Schwarb ---
> Of course. But not being able to silence such warnings renders
> this option rather usele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:28:29PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Unfortunately, -Wconversion has a problem with false positives.
> You can, of co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 06:58:27PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
>
> --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:50:06PM +, manfred99 at gmx dot ch wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
>
> --- Comment #7 from Manfred Schwarb ---
> Hopefully this rings some bells: The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:34:36PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
>
> multi.f90:2199:23:
>
> 2199 |call evolvePDF (x(1), q, f)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:32:39AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #11)
>
> > Error: Type mismatch between actual arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 06:49:15PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> module foo
> implicit none
> type t1
> integer :: i = 1
> end type t1
> type t2
> integer :: j = 2
> end type t2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 07:18:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
>
> --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Karg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #20 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 07:43:54PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
>
> --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Thomas Koe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:38:09PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > The current solution is a bit annoying for impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #24 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:51:23PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
>
> --- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Thomas Koe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #26 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 11:21:05AM +, mario-baumann at web dot de wrote:
>
> --- Comment #25 from Mario Baumann ---
>
> the following fortran code (without module/interface statements)
>
> SUBROU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 08:05:33AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> __builtin_isnan is required to pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:25:53PM +, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > The Fortran standard may require this behavior. 18-007r1 page 435
>
> But none of that is needed since a correct implementati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:22:24PM +, wdijkstr at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
>
> Wilco changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:25:23PM +, manfred99 at gmx dot ch wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
>
> --- Comment #9 from Manfred Schwarb ---
> Hi Steve,
>
> I tried your patch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:08:52PM +, manfred99 at gmx dot ch wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
>
> --- Comment #11 from Manfred Schwarb ---
> >> !---LONG not allowed anym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91731
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:36:20PM +, damian at sourceryinstitute dot org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91731
>
> --- Comment #3 from Damian Rouson ---
> So do I need to report thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:10:21AM +, manfred99 at gmx dot ch wrote:
>
> c.f:4:15:
>
> 4 | ww=CMPLX(1.0_8, 1.0_8)
> | 1
> Warning: Conversion from REAL(8) to default-kind CO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91731
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:06:12AM +, damian at sourceryinstitute dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
> Steve, I'm so incredibly glad you posted the details of your workaround.
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:23:54AM +, manfred99 at gmx dot ch wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
>
> --- Comment #17 from Manfred Schwarb ---
> Here is the documentation fallout
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91752
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 07:34:11AM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91752
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91714
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 08:58:19PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Fixes the problem with "typea"
>
> Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
> ===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:47:01PM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91939
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
> Man, Steve, your memory is bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
Index: gcc/fortran/io.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/io.c(revision 276271)
+++ gcc/fortran/io.c(working copy)
@@ -1469,7 +1469,7 @@ match_vtag (con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:03:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > But is it valid fortran?
>
> Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 07:07:08AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:03:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > (In reply to Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:10:48PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> You're right, Steve, the problem lies in the simplification
> of the implied DO loop (the error message is a catch-all
> which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:25:15PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
>
> --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed, Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92006
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:22:01AM +, urbanjost at comcast dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92006
>
> --- Comment #3 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
> (In reply to kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
This patch allows the code to compile, but I have no idea
if it is correct.
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(revision 276837)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:25:10PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
> This patch allows the code to compile, but I have no idea
> if it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 05:02:50PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > GNU Fortran (GCC) 7.4.0
This was released in Dec 2018, so ...
> This may have been fixed by
>
> r242802 | kargl | 2016-11-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:57:05PM +, angus at agibson dot me wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
>
> --- Comment #5 from Angus Gibson ---
> I agree that it's not ideal... Unfortun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 06:34:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> gfortran 6, 7, and trunk all give
>
> % gfc6 -o z a.f90 && ./z
> len(a) = 1
> len(bb) = 2
> len(ccc) = 3
> len() = 0
> len() = 0
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
In resolve.c(resolve_assoc_var) one finds this chuck of code
/* Fix up the type-spec for CHARACTER types. */
if (sym->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER && !sym->attr.select_type_temporary)
{
if (!sym->ts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:00:32PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
>
> Intel v15 gives the result you probably expected:
>
> len(a) = 1
> len(bb) = 2
> len(ccc) = 3
> len(a) = 1
> len(a) = 1
> len(bb) = 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:04:54PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> /* Fix up the type-spec for CHARACTER types. */
> if (sym->ts.type == BT_CHARA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:00:57PM +, daanvanvugt at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
>
> --- Comment #7 from Daan van Vugt ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83548
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 06:07:47PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> This is caused by the patch that allowed a type-spec
> in an array constructor. There is special-case code in
> match.c(gfc_match_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83548
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 07:46:47PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83548
>
> --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Patch submitted.
>
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83149
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 08:00:29PM +, neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> I disagree (in part) with comment 4.
>
As you failed to quote the part that is disagreeable, it is
somewhat difficult to pu
301 - 400 of 1026 matches
Mail list logo
