[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:19:18AM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > > --- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab --- > On powerpc64: > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) > FAIL:

[Bug fortran/97224] [8/9/10/11 Regression] SPECCPU 2006 Gamess fails to build after g:e5a76af3a2f3324efc60b4b2778ffb29d5c377bc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97224 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:48:13AM +, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97224 > > Bug ID: 97224 >Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression]

[Bug fortran/98454] Apparent wrong initialization in function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:15:56PM +, ffadrique at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454 > > --- Comment #6 from Fran Martinez Fadrique --- > I have raised the issue

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:49:07PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com wrote: > > I am not asking for advice here, I reported a bug with its reproducer. What bug? > It is not your concern what kind of

[Bug fortran/98201] CSQRT function gives bad resuts at runtime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201 --- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:28:49AM +, dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201 > > --- Comment #13 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu --- > Ok, I have

[Bug fortran/98201] CSQRT function gives bad resuts at runtime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201 --- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:24:20PM +, dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201 > > --- Comment #15 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu --- > attached is the

[Bug fortran/98022] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_assign_data_value, at fortran/data.c:468 since r9-3803-ga5fbc2f36a291cbe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 04:02:54PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022 > > --- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #4) >

[Bug fortran/98022] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_assign_data_value, at fortran/data.c:468 since r9-3803-ga5fbc2f36a291cbe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 05:54:43PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022 > > --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- > The example that you give shows that

[Bug fortran/98253] Conflicting random_seed/random_init results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98253 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:55:41PM +, damian at sourceryinstitute dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98253 > > Damian Rouson changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/98433] double free detected in tcache 2, after merge of structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:29:47PM +, guez at lmd dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433 > > --- Comment #2 from Lionel GUEZ --- > Sure, the issue goes away if you specify

[Bug fortran/92065] [8/9/10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:35:24PM +, gtoth at umich dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 > > > Apparently this bug was reported years ago, and it was not fixed. There was

[Bug fortran/92065] [8/9/10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 05:24:53AM +, gtoth at umich dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 > > --- Comment #10 from Gabor --- > Good to know that gfortran has come to an

[Bug fortran/98284] ICE in get_array_index

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98284 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 09:01:15PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Steve, > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-December/055427.html > >

[Bug fortran/98458] PRINT the array constructed from implied do-loop throw ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:52:03AM +, xiao@compiler-dev.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458 > > --- Comment #5 from xiao@compiler-dev.com --- > (In reply to Paul

[Bug fortran/98458] ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer due to array expressions within implied do-loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 01:40:22PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6) > > Hi Steve, > > I didn't check for any new

[Bug fortran/98517] gfortran segfault on character array initialization from parameter value since r8-5900-g266404a8d62b99ab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 09:19:51PM +, emr-gnu at hev dot psu.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517 > > --- Comment #3 from Eric Reischer --- > Confirm the attached patch

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:43:20PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com wrote: > > I concluded that is a waste of time arguing with him. > Did you run the test program from my last comment?

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:43:20PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 > > --- Comment #17 from Chinoune --- > Once I reported a bug to

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:51:38AM +, Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 > > --- Comment #6 from Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu --- > I get wrong

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 05:21:22PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > You're using undefined variables. > I little more debugging, read(5,*) estrt,esfinal,eincr if(eincr.gt.0)

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:41:56AM +, Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 > > --- Comment #4 from Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu --- > I compiled with

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 04:48:09AM +, Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 > > --- Comment #9 from Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu --- > Yes, thank you

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:20:20PM +, Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu wrote: > > Do you've any suggestions for how to trace the source > of error so I can fix the code? > Not really. I suppose old

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 04:12:27AM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 > > --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Patch regresses several test

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 04:12:27AM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 > > --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Patch regresses several test

[Bug fortran/96986] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Explicit interface required: volatile argument for ENTRY subroutine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96986 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 07:53:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96986 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:28:15PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com wrote: > There is no mention of your claims in the standard: > I know what the standard says. > Fortran 2018: > COUNT (optional)

[Bug fortran/98883] Module variable not initialized with -finit-real

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98883 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 06:55:16PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > This bug report should be closed. > > Please read the description of option

[Bug fortran/98948] unexpected error in procedure pointer initialization or assignment with intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98948 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 07:00:10AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98948 > > kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 05:09:05PM +, gs...@t-online.de wrote: > > It should be valid, type-spec is explicitly given and the ac-values > are type compatible (see e.g. F2018 7.8). With len(x(1:2))==2 the

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:47:30PM +, yuri at tsoft dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 > > --- Comment #3 from Yuri --- > On amd64 gcc installs the file

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:56:57AM +, yuri at tsoft dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 > > --- Comment #5 from Yuri --- > config.log doesn't contain the IEEE string

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:43:28AM +, yuri at tsoft dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 > > --- Comment #7 from Yuri --- > fpu-387.h is in the gcc10 source tree: > > $

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 06:49:11PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7) > > There is no default initialization in the code below. default > > initialization is

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 09:12:15PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > There seems to be something fishy with default initialization of function >

[Bug fortran/100662] intrinsic::ieee_arithmetic fails on aarch, powerpc architectures on FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:45:12AM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote: > --- Comment #9 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- > Steve, is this a GCC bug or a FreeBSD bug (or if it is something else, what >

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:31:49PM +, David.Smith at lmu dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 > > --- Comment #2 from David.Smith at lmu dot edu --- > > With neither

[Bug fortran/101399] Horizonal tab character not ignored on print statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101399 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:44:11PM +, urbanjost at comcast dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101399 > > --- Comment #4 from urbanjost at comcast dot net --- > Wow. I cannot

[Bug fortran/97571] long parsing phase for simple array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 06:03:16PM +, molah at ucar dot edu wrote: > I would expect a compiler must do a reasonable job to compile correct Fortran > code in a reasonable amount of time. The response for

[Bug fortran/99061] [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_atan2d, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 06:03:56PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c > index 5c9258c65c3..0cf0aa56811 100644 > ---

[Bug fortran/99711] Crash when reading an allocated character array in namelist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:35:31AM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > What does -ftree-dump-original show? I wonder if gfortran is doing a > re-allocation on assignment when it

[Bug fortran/99711] Crash when reading an allocated character array in namelist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:41:08AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 > > --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Digging further within

[Bug fortran/99711] Crash when reading an allocated character array in namelist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:41:27AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 > > --- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Setting the character length in

[Bug libfortran/99740] floating point exception in rand() in gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:52:53PM +, pvoytas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740 > > --- Comment #3 from Paul A. Voytas --- > I see what you mean--if i test for

[Bug fortran/99711] Crash when reading an allocated character array in namelist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:47:28AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle --- > This is interesting, compiling with the -g option for debugging. > > Running a test

[Bug fortran/99840] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_matmul, at fortran/simplify.c:4777

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:51:57PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840 > > --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > OK, now I see it.

[Bug fortran/99561] gfortran reports an error for a truncation that is permitted by the standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99561 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:39:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Michal Paszta from comment #0) > > In this line of code: > > > >

[Bug fortran/99506] internal compiler error: in record_reference, at cgraphbuild.c:64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:39:19AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506 > > --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- > This is a frontend issue, the FE

[Bug fortran/99506] internal compiler error: in record_reference, at cgraphbuild.c:64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:22:45PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug fortran/99506] internal compiler error: in record_reference, at cgraphbuild.c:64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:59:39PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506 > > --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at

[Bug fortran/99256] ICE in variable_check, at fortran/check.c:1012

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99256 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 06:40:13PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > In check_variable(), looking at gfc_current_intrinsic_arg[n]->actual, > there is locus information. there is *no* locus info.

[Bug fortran/95644] [F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:22:46AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644 > > --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle --- > It is very likely that the gcc

[Bug fortran/63797] Bogus ambiguous reference to 'sqrt'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:49:35PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > The following patch

[Bug fortran/63797] Bogus ambiguous reference to 'sqrt'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:43:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Steve, can you give an

[Bug fortran/99061] [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_atan2d, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- Neither Gerhard's original code nor my patch fixed other ICEs. Here's a test program for x86 systems. program p implicit none real(4) :: a1, e1 = 1.e-6 real(8) :: b1, e2 = 1.e-10 real(10) ::

[Bug libfortran/98301] random_init() is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 04:36:50AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- > Steve, if you think this does it. I will get it ready to commit for you. Does > it

[Bug libfortran/98301] random_init() is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 06:57:03PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98301 > > --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at

[Bug fortran/100149] Seg fault passing to CHARACTER(*), DIMENSION(*), INTENT(IN), OPTIONAL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100149 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:48:24PM +, brtnfld at hdfgroup dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100149 > > --- Comment #3 from Scot Breitenfeld --- > For future reference,

[Bug fortran/69360] loop optimization produces invalid code when a common array has dimension 1 in some files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:20:54PM +, johnnorthall263 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360 > > --- Comment #6 from John Northall --- > It's deliberate! I think

[Bug fortran/101871] Array of strings of different length passed as an argument produces invalid result.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101871 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 07:21:42PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101871 > > --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > In

[Bug fortran/101327] ICE in find_array_element, at fortran/expr.c:1355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101327 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:35:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Steve, > > are you going to submit this or your version? > I no longer have the ability to commit changes, so I won't being

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:23:46PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #17) > > There is Fortran code in libgfortran that is compiled > > by gfortran when the

[Bug fortran/101349] ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field, at fortran/trans-array.c:140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101349 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:31:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Steve, > > are you going to submit your patch? > I submitted the patch to

[Bug fortran/102113] parsing error in assigned goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102113 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:28:06PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > are you going to submit your patch? > The patch has been submitted to bugzilla. That's as far as I can go.

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:08:07PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #16 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:26:59AM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #7 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- > The suggested removal of

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:15:11AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- > Now I wonder, since libgfortran

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:49:54PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > subroutine foo4 > > implicit none > > real(4) :: ar(2,3), v(1) > > That should have read: > > real :: ar(2,3), v(1) >

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:40:31PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 > > -fallow-argument-mismatch was added to allow users, > > who refuse to

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:34:17PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > > > No, it is not. The -fallow-argument-match option was given to > > user to allow them to compile their broken code. It

[Bug fortran/102331] ICE in attr_decl1, at fortran/decl.c:8691

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 08:57:45PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331 > > --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:14:26PM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 > > --- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- > 1) The gfortran manual

[Bug fortran/101632] NON_RECURSIVE procedure prefix is unsupported. F2018 defaults to recursive procedures.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:37:40PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 > > Janne Blomqvist changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/102371] Error for type spec in FORALL statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102371 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:05:02PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102371 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/102458] ICE tree check: expected array_type, have pointer_type in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:6136

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:17:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 03:23:59PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > > > You need to use -fdefault-real-8 -fdefault-double-8 when compiling both > > files. How is the 2nd invocation of gfortran

[Bug fortran/101918] LTO type mismatches for runtime library functions in mixed -fdefault-real-8 projects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 --- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:11:12PM +, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101918 > > --- Comment #14 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl

[Bug testsuite/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 05:28:08AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- > I think the following is better: > > #ifndef alloca > #define alloca __builtin_alloca

[Bug fortran/103505] ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587 since r8-7594-g078c5aff5ed83e9c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 09:51:23PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Submitted as: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-December/057102.html > Just saw the commit fly by. Thanks for

[Bug fortran/103412] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size since r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103412 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:07:44PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Alternative patch: > Either patch fixes the problem and I'll offer that

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Unfortunately the

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:13:05PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Unfortunately the

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 02:18:46PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 > > > > ---

[Bug fortran/103418] random_number() does not accept pointer, intent(in) array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:02:34PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > > > The nearly obvious fix: > > > > > > diff --git

[Bug fortran/99853] ICE: Cannot convert 'LOGICAL(4)' to 'INTEGER(8)' (etc.)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:04:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99853 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug testsuite/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 05:05:26PM +, sandra at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910 > > --- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I will rewrite this

[Bug fortran/103505] ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587 since r8-7594-g078c5aff5ed83e9c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 08:26:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl

[Bug fortran/103505] ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587 since r8-7594-g078c5aff5ed83e9c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:42:44PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505 > > --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/101564] ICE in resolve_allocate_deallocate, at fortran/resolve.c:8169

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101564 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 08:37:02PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-July/056264.html > OK.

[Bug fortran/101632] NON_RECURSIVE procedure prefix is unsupported. F2018 defaults to recursive procedures.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:15:53PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101632 > > --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Created attachment 51207

[Bug fortran/104927] Invalid array size specification accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104927 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:10:41PM +, federico.perini at gmail dot com wrote: > --- Comment #2 from federico --- > Yeah I'm surprised but wrong. The "overriding" option of the rhs size > specification is

[Bug fortran/104812] Construct-name with same variable name in scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104812 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:27:41AM +, fruitclover at gmail dot com wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from Mike K. --- > Thanks, and subroutine s2 conforming Fortran 2018, 19.4, right? > No. The logical

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:32:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:10:34PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > I was wondering if we also need to allow BT_CLASS. I'm not sure. I don't use CLASSes, so only know a bit about them. If I

[Bug fortran/105138] [7,8,9,10,11,12,F95] Bogus error when function name does not shadow an intrinsic when RESULT clause is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105138 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 08:27:03PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #8) > > This patch fixes the error. The

[Bug fortran/104332] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in resolve_symbol, at fortran/resolve.cc:15815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104332 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 08:04:45PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104332 > > kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/104313] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE verify_gimple failed with -ff2c since r10-2279-ge0af8f52b10385d8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104313 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 03:52:51PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104313 > > --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > diff --git

[Bug fortran/104314] ICE in deferred_op_assign, at fortran/resolve.cc:11794

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104314 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:14:39PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Untested patch. > Seems to pass regression testing.

[Bug fortran/104100] Passing an allocated array to a C bind function alters the bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104100 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:15:25PM +, hzhou321 at anl dot gov wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104100 > > --- Comment #2 from Hui Zhou --- > Great! That means it has already been

  1   2   3   >