--- Comment #12 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2008-06-18 07:20 ---
Hi!
Stupid question: is it related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-06/msg00203.html ?
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36342
--- Comment #5 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2008-06-06 08:30 ---
Thanks!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36342
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2008-05-28 11:06 ---
Thanks!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36342
could warn about unallocated arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot
not appear to be 'PRESENT'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen
--- Comment #3 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-08-07 06:45 ---
Hi!
Fixed: revision 127237 builds smoothly
Thanks!
Philippe
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes43910
# of unexpected failures33
# of unexpected
Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32835
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-07-20 10:55 ---
This is actually known (I missed it...): see Richard Sandiford's answer at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-07/msg00389.html
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32835
--- Comment #7 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-06-06 13:21 ---
If someone acts on FX's suggestion, Bug 32035 might also be tackeled at the
same time...
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
--- Comment #1 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-05-31 12:47 ---
More weird stuff with the following...
Philippe
subroutine Test ( Verbose, Position )
logical, intent(in) :: Verbose
integer, intent(in) :: Position
integer, parameter :: Anchor = 666, Cut_off
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32151
Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32035
--- Comment #14 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-05-14 10:06 ---
Hi!
Sorry about the noise, I'm wondering: the trick of using a tiny C routine:
kill ( (pid_t)0, SIGILL );
is there any obvious reason for that?
Thanks!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-02-21 11:58 ---
Hi!
I don't seem to be able to apply this patch to '122195' sources: did it get out
of synch, or is it plain clumsiness on my part?
I get:
Hunk #2 FAILED at 3151.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED
--- Comment #7 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-02-09 08:25 ---
The Digital|Compaq|HP|Intel implementation goes for a module 'DFLIB', though I
have to admit I get lost with the pros and cons.
Regarding whether this should be implemented at all, I would
--- Comment #9 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-02-09 10:05 ---
Hi!
I had indeed thought about using soem variation on '0. / 0.', but I find it
somewhat messy...
Somehow generating a kill from C does looks like a viable alternative though (I
would maybe
--- Comment #10 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-02-09 13:25 ---
In case anyone is interested: as mnetioned in Comment #8, just calling this
tiny C routine causes a traceback
#include sys/types.h
#include signal.h
void checktraceback_()
{
kill ( (pid_t)0
--- Comment #5 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-02-09 07:44 ---
Hi!
This is great!
I cannot judge how much work this would be, but would it be possible to extend
this patch a little further so that these backtraces can be requested by the
user? (i.e. like
--- Comment #4 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2007-01-11 07:39 ---
Thanks a lot!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30405
: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30405
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30272
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-12-21 09:38 ---
Erm... I have very little knowledge of C, and next to no understanding of the
GCC sources, so I'm afraid I do not fully understand what could be done, but if
you care to spell it out (easy
--- Comment #4 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-12-21 13:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=12831)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12831action=view)
GZip-ed relevant math.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30272
--- Comment #5 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-12-21 13:23 ---
Following Daniel's advice (which does sound to make sense), here's this faulty
math.h...
I hope someone can make sense of this all...
Thanks!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-12-19 07:45 ---
Hi!
Indeed! I can build again with 'revision 120002'.
Thanks!
Philippe
--
P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30220
--- Comment #1 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-12-15 13:51 ---
Sorry wrong move...
I somehow don't seem to be able to build the GCC udner Irix anymore (...).
The most likely is that something is too outdated on my system, but still...
I'm trying to build
--
P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-31 09:13 ---
Right!
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29648
--- Comment #9 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-30 11:38 ---
Sorry it took me so long, but I had clobbered my objects (...), and then I
tried to post it, but somehow it doesn't show: sorry if comes twice...
I would guess it's not obviously wrong
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-30 12:29 ---
I think a '-traceback' would be a very nice enhancement! (as you could then
have the likes of 'ERRTRA' from Lahey or 'TRACEBACKQQ' from Compaq, I forgot
how it translates with Intel...)
--
P
--- Comment #7 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-27 07:03 ---
Here's what I get:
makeinfo -v --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --split-size=500 -I
/USER/philippe/Irix/Gcc_Sources/gcc/doc/include -I
/USER/philippe/Irix/Gcc_Sources/gcc/fortran
--- Comment #4 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-26 06:37 ---
I am experiecing the same thing under Irix with freshly checked out sources.
The system: SGI, IRIX64 blue1 6.5 04100802 IP27. All the tools are quite out of
date...
PS: is this related to 'Bug
--- Comment #12 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-26 06:42 ---
Isn't this also 'Bug#: 27133'?
--
P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-10-26 12:02 ---
Sure!
It will just take some time, as I've cleaned-up my objects in between (I was
getting reading to give it another go with an up-to-date TexInfo...). I hope to
be able to post that in a few
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-09-14 07:42 ---
Hi!
My PATH was indeed set wrong! (sorry about that...). It seems to work now
(well, I mean it goes further...).
Thanks a lot for your help!
Philippe
--
P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29058
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28200
selection
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
GCC
--- Comment #1 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-10 11:34 ---
Sorry, I missed it before, but this could definitly be a dupplicate of 19777.
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27524
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #8 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-04 09:38 ---
Hi!
My (not reduced) code compiles again!
Sorry for the delay, but compiling the whole does take some time...
Thanks a lot!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27392
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27419
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-04 13:27 ---
Hi!
Thanks a lot!
That's exactly what I was looking for: I don't seem to be able to do the same
with libgfortran, though... have I missed something, or should request that?
Thanks!
Philippe
--- Comment #4 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-04 15:25 ---
I hadn't thought about that...
Thanks a lot for your help!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27419
--- Comment #3 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-03 11:44 ---
Hi!
I believe this could be related: compiling the following with any optimisation
(starting from -O1) causes the following error:
initFeldVonDatei.f90: In function 'initfeldvondateiphase2korn
--- Comment #5 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-03 19:28 ---
Erm... sorry about that, I didn't think about it: I've indeed thrown out a lot
(I do not have the original sources at hand, but they are happily compiled by
quite a few compilers, including lf95
--- Comment #3 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-04-12 15:02 ---
Subject: Re: Incorrect dependency for assignment from
functionwith array section actual arg.
Merci!
Philippe
paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr wrote:
--- Comment #2 from paul
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #1 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-02-21 12:24 ---
Oops!
I forgot to mention that the whole thing occurs under Linux (see hereafter).
Philippe
PS: uname -a:
Linux pinguin7 2.6.5-7.104-bigsmp #1 SMP Wed Jul 28 16:42:13 UTC 2004 i686 i686
i386
--- Comment #5 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-02-16 14:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=10862)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10862action=view)
Sources which exhibit this behaviour (under 32-bit linux)
Hi!
Here's something that exhibits
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
CC: gcc-bugs
--- Additional Comments From P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot
de 2005-06-02 11:51 ---
Subject: Re: internal compiler error:
inlhd_set_decl_assembler_name, at langhooks.c:165
Hi!
Erm... I just removed as much as possible to avoid having too much code
(from 1173 to 230
--- Additional Comments From P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot
de 2005-05-23 09:05 ---
Hi!
I was trying to read some binary data written by a GFortran binary with binaries
written with other compilers (LF, SGI), and I couldn't get anywhere, so I just
started to poke around
with binary sequential output
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth
Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21471
57 matches
Mail list logo
