http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52861
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53591
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52861
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2012-06-07
14:33:56 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jun 7 14:33:51 2012
New Revision: 188305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188305
Log:
2012-06-07 Thomas König
PR fortran/52861
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52537
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48543
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-06-07
14:58:38 UTC ---
I'll do a bit of work on that, because it can also be useful
for reducing memcpy/memset pairs.
Consider
character(len=3) :: a
character(len=4) :: b
a = 'a'
b = 'a'
This coul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52265
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig 2012-06-30
17:20:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Hi Dominique,
> (I have done the proof on the back of an envelope that I cannot find right
> now.)
Can you find that particular envelope again? I tried t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53824
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53955
Bug #: 53955
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Missing prototypes in i386.c,
bootstrap failure with
--disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53955
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53824
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-07-16
20:58:08 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jul 16 20:58:04 2012
New Revision: 189549
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189549
Log:
2012-07-16 Thomas König
PR fortran/53824
||2012-07-22
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-07-22
20:06:18 UTC ---
This patch looks OK so far.
Index: scanner.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-08-01
21:43:54 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Aug 1 21:43:50 2012
New Revision: 190054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190054
Log:
2012-08-01 Thomas König
PR fortran/54033
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-08-01
21:45:49 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
Thanks for the bug report!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-01
19:40:29 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:40:25 2012
New Revision: 183812
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183812
Log:
2012-02-01 Thomas König
PR fortran/51958
||2012-02-03
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-03
19:21:15 UTC ---
Let's make put this on WAITING until the IR is finished.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48847
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-03
22:13:07 UTC ---
This doesn't match the docs. We say
-Wunused-parameter'
Contrary to `gcc''s meaning of `-Wunused-parameter', `gfortran''s
implementation of this option does not warn about
at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-04
22:14:40 UTC ---
I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48847
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-05
20:14:10 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 5 20:14:00 2012
New Revision: 183916
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183916
Log:
2012-02-05 Thomas König
PR fortran/48847
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48847
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32373
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-05
21:49:50 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 5 21:49:46 2012
New Revision: 183917
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183917
Log:
2012-02-05 Thomas König
PR fortran/32373
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-05
21:50:28 UTC ---
All tests pass now, resolving as FIXED after
adding a test case to trunk.
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-05
23:56:19 UTC ---
This is fixed, the best way would be to add the test case and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32373
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-06
21:25:00 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:24:54 2012
New Revision: 183943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183943
Log:
2012-02-06 Thomas König
PR fortran/32373
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-08
19:53:59 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Feb 8 19:53:56 2012
New Revision: 184017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184017
Log:
2012-02-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-11
09:31:08 UTC ---
I also think this is not a missed optimization. We need a temporary
for the write statement anyway.
I vote for closing this.
Setting to WAITING, if somebody else concurs please close.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
Bug #: 52307
Summary: Segmentation fault in Lapack with -O3 -floop-flatten
-floop-strip-mine
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koeni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38114
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50688
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-19
20:00:39 UTC ---
Fixed with the fix for PR 48847. No separate test case
necessary. Closing.
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-19
20:02:31 UTC ---
Is this fixed now?
>From the comments, it seems that we can close this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-20
17:16:38 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 20 17:16:33 2012
New Revision: 184398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184398
Log:
2012-02-13 Thomas Koenig
PR testsuite/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52229
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52229
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-20
17:16:38 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 20 17:16:33 2012
New Revision: 184398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184398
Log:
2012-02-13 Thomas Koenig
PR testsuite/522
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-26
12:28:44 UTC ---
Also confirmed on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Bug #: 52414
Summary: [4.7 Regression] syntax error in VERSION script
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52537
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52537
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
||2012-03-24
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-03-24
17:56:33 UTC ---
I don't have access to the SPEC sources.
Do you have a reduced test case?
at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-03-24
17:57:18 UTC ---
I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52724
Bug #: 52724
Summary: Internal read with character(kind=4) data
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52724
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-02
07:40:32 UTC ---
This may have been fixed with the fix for PR 48847.
Can you maybe check on trunk/4.7.0 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52668
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-06
18:31:19 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Apr 6 18:31:11 2012
New Revision: 186199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186199
Log:
2012-04-06 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/52668
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52893
Bug #: 52893
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Moving functions out of implied
DO loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52893
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52893
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-07
16:38:19 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Apr 7 16:38:11 2012
New Revision: 186213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186213
Log:
2012-04-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/52893
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52893
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52668
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-07
19:58:49 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Apr 7 19:58:43 2012
New Revision: 186214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186214
Log:
2012-04-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/52668
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52668
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52893
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-07
20:27:10 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Apr 7 20:27:02 2012
New Revision: 186215
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186215
Log:
2012-04-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/52893
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52893
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52724
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-08
08:55:42 UTC ---
Yes, my original test case was bogus.
Slightly reduced test case:
program main
implicit none
integer :: i
character(len=100,kind=4) :: buffer
buffer = 4_"123"
read(buffer,*
||2012-04-09
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-09
19:09:51 UTC ---
Reduced test case?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52537
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-12
10:47:36 UTC ---
For this particular case,
if (trim(a) == '')
could be simplified to
if (len_trim(a) == 0)
Probably best done via front-end optimization.
||2012-04-14
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-14
11:36:57 UTC ---
Confirmed, would be a good idea.
||FIXED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-15
11:53:44 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-15
11:52:49 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 15 11:52:44 2012
New Revision: 186466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186466
Log:
2012-04-15 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-15
11:55:25 UTC ---
Test case from comment #16 has been fixed.
Is there anything else to do?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50673
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-04-15
11:52:49 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 15 11:52:44 2012
New Revision: 186466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186466
Log:
2012-04-15 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
I have a patch.
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Trying out a fix for PR 58003, I found that the following program was of the
opinion that -1 does not equal -1:
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/NoRange>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
TRANSFER gets this right.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||58003
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/NoRange> cat iso.f90
program main
use iso_fortran_env
end program main
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/NoRange> gfortran -fdump-fortran-original iso.f90
Nam
||2013-12-28
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
I have a patch.
|0
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 07:53:00PM +0000, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604
> >
> > Thomas Koenig changed:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51153
Bug #: 51153
Summary: OpenACC implementation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51153
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2011-11-29
17:45:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The above patch has no new testsuite regressions.
> If someone wants to check and make sure the optimisa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2011-11-29
17:49:31 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 29 17:49:24 2011
New Revision: 181810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181810
Log:
2011-11-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/40958
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51338
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-05
20:11:53 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 5 20:11:44 2011
New Revision: 182024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182024
Log:
2011-12-05 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/51338
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43289
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-11
17:43:26 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Dec 11 17:43:22 2011
New Revision: 182208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182208
Log:
2011-12-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/50690
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51338
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-11
20:03:47 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Dec 11 20:03:43 2011
New Revision: 182209
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182209
Log:
2011-12-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/5133
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51338
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2011-12-11
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-11
20:29:39 UTC ---
Nitpick: A pure procedure could access the variable, but
it could assign a value to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-11
20:56:54 UTC ---
The problem occurs in expr.c:
if (!pointer && gfc_implicit_pure (NULL) && gfc_impure_variable (sym))
gfc_current_ns->proc_name->attr.implicit_pure = 0;
assumes that gfc_curren
||2011-12-18
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-18
10:20:44 UTC ---
Confirmed, would be nice
at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-31
08:19:01 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Dec 31 08:18:52 2011
New Revision: 182754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182754
Log:
2011-12-31 Thomas König
PR fortran/51502
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-01
16:12:50 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jan 1 16:12:39 2012
New Revision: 182770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182770
Log:
2012-01-01 Thomas König
Backport from tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-01
16:27:53 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jan 1 16:27:45 2012
New Revision: 182771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182771
Log:
2012-01-01 Thomas König
Backport from tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-03
12:36:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Testing this patch:
which doesn't work.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-04
11:51:40 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Jan 4 11:51:37 2012
New Revision: 182869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182869
Log:
2012-01-04 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/49693
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51751
Bug #: 51751
Summary: COMPLEX16 tests fail in Lapack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51751
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-04
23:18:15 UTC ---
Also fails with 4.5.3 on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu at -O3, and with current
trunk at -O0.
Does not fail on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with current trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51751
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-06
02:14:13 UTC ---
The problem appears to be in the test routine zdrvgb, at line
639 (and following) of zdrvgb.f, where the contents of the array
s contain zero for powerpc64 and very low values for x86_
701 - 800 of 3590 matches
Mail list logo
