[Bug fortran/68968] New: Internal Compiler error

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 37073 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37073=edit Compile this as indicated in the comments and get a segmentation fault in the compiler test.

[Bug fortran/65026] Internal compiler error with preprocessor in gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65026 --- Comment #1 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- The first test.F90 I attached had some extra '=' signs in the #defines. I have tried to replace that test.F90 with a corrected version which gets the same error. I'm

[Bug fortran/65025] Internal compiler error with preprocessor in gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65025 --- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- Created attachment 34734 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34734action=edit The small test program that shows the error. Maybe this time the code will get there?

[Bug fortran/65026] New: Internal compiler error with preprocessor in gfortran

Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com Compile the attached with gfortran -Dplet_=\'d\' -g -o test test.F90 or replace the d with s, q, or nonsense. The kind of preprocessor code used here seems to be handled just

[Bug fortran/65025] New: Internal compiler error with preprocessor in gfortran

Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com Created attachment 34733 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34733action=edit Short program that gives the internal compiler error Compile the attached

[Bug fortran/65025] Internal compiler error with preprocessor in gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65025 --- Comment #4 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- In collapsing a big code to the small example, I left out a line that should be there. Add below the first line use ISO_C_BINDING, only: C_DOUBLE, C_FLOAT, C_LONG_DOUBLE

[Bug fortran/65025] Internal compiler error with preprocessor in gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65025 --- Comment #5 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- I realize (now) that this is not a valid Fortran code. I was trying to hard to make it work like it works in C. Removing the apostrophes around the s, d, and q, in both

[Bug fortran/61002] Can't divide by 0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61002 --- Comment #4 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- No objection here. I had just missed -fno-range-check, see comment 1.

[Bug fortran/61002] New: Can't divide by 0

: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com If I have a statement like real(kind(1.0d0)), parameter :: big=1.0d0/0.0d0 the compile fails with an error even when using the option -ffpe-trap= The man page for gcc makes this excellent point -Wno-div

[Bug fortran/61002] Can't divide by 0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61002 --- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- Thanks, that did the job.

[Bug fortran/60993] Trouble initializing double precision variable using boz literals

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60993 --- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- Thanks for the suggestion. As a result of another suggestion, I'm using -fno-range-check and defining infinity as 1.0d0/0.0d0.

[Bug fortran/60993] New: Trouble initializing double precision variable using boz literals

Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com Created attachment 32701 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32701action=edit This code illustrates the problem above The attached

[Bug fortran/60462] get_command returns more than it should

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60462 Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/60462] New: get_command returns more than it should

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com

[Bug fortran/60462] get_command returns more than it should

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60462 --- Comment #1 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- With this command line ./tapt -u ./mps afiro it gives /home/m/math77/lin/cons/anypoint/tapt ./tapt -u ./mps afiro The standard makes no mention of providing the first part

[Bug libfortran/58020] Code for handling IEEE exceptions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020 --- Comment #9 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- Concering Fortran language standards, our guru is W. Van Snyder a long time member of the Fortran Standards committee. He has said to me in an email: It's OK not to support

[Bug libfortran/58020] New: Code for handling IEEE exceptions

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com Dr. Richard Hanson has written code to provide IEEE exception handling to gfortran. He is the sole owner of that code and it could be used by gcc as they wish. The code is on my server at http

[Bug libfortran/58020] Code for handling IEEE exceptions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020 --- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com --- 1. Hanson is willing to assign the copyright if you expect to be using this work. There were thoughts to include this work on a SIAM website where we think SIAM would want

[Bug fortran/56887] New: Test for equality of reals now flagged with a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56887 Bug #: 56887 Summary: Test for equality of reals now flagged with a warning Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #12 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-17 15:35:10 UTC --- For those using valgrind on gentoo for the first time (like me) you need to add to FEATURES in make.conf, splitdebug and re-emerge glibc. I've

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #13 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-17 16:40:22 UTC --- As perhaps you have already guessed, this is just me being confused. After removing a lot of stuff from the code, I inserted a print statement

[Bug fortran/56637] New: Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 Bug #: 56637 Summary: Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1)) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #1 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-16 18:02:49 UTC --- I realize this is not much help for a bug report. I can't get a small test case to fail, and if I change the optimization level it works. Also

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #3 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-16 18:46:06 UTC --- First some confusion. If I single step over the first statement it works properly. Once past that confusion, deleting both -floop-block

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #5 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-16 21:25:46 UTC --- I don't mean to be argumentative, but I would like to ask: Would an index out of bounds explain why single stepping over the statement make

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #7 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-16 21:44:46 UTC --- As mentioned in my first post, I am compiling with -fcheck-bounds. The errors are occurring in a subroutine inside what at the moment is a main

[Bug fortran/56637] Bad result on max(1,shiftr(j,1))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56637 --- Comment #9 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-03-17 04:42:39 UTC --- I have tried, but the small examples I've tried all work. And the code uses a library that I am not free to pass on. Probably you just have

[Bug fortran/53867] New: Probably a bogus warning on types

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53867 Bug #: 53867 Summary: Probably a bogus warning on types Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/51104] New: internal compiler error: in gfc_get_derived_type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51104 Bug #: 51104 Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_get_derived_type Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/50892] New: Internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:7477

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50892 Bug #: 50892 Summary: Internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:7477 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/50619] New: Surprising interaction between -finit-real=NAN and the associate construct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50619 Bug #: 50619 Summary: Surprising interaction between -finit-real=NAN and the associate construct Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status:

[Bug fortran/49636] New: Associate construct confused with slightly complicated case

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636 Summary: Associate construct confused with slightly complicated case Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/49636] Associate construct confused with slightly complicated case

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636 --- Comment #1 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2011-07-04 23:21:21 UTC --- Sorry failed to include the output of the program. Here it is. i_good= 1 3 5 i_bad= 1 4197184 3

[Bug libfortran/41157] dtime not consistent in times reported

--- Comment #2 from fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2009-08-24 17:34 --- I had thought that was the case as well. But when I started getting some negative times by subtracting the previous value from the current one in the first location of the array I looked at the info file

[Bug fortran/38305] New: Bug in gfortran with combination of P and F in a format.

. Product: gcc Version: 4.3.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com GCC build triplet: Several http

[Bug fortran/30998] New: Big code with assigned goto's loops with optimization

ReportedBy: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30998

[Bug fortran/29872] New: GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.1 (Gentoo 4.1.1-r2 not compatible with gdb

Version: 4.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29872