http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-20
11:39:31 UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Mar 20 11:34:56 2013
New Revision: 196821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=196821root=gccview=rev
Log:
Don't XFAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-03-18 11:04:58
UTC ---
Since very recently (between 20130313 and 20130315) gfortran.dg/do_1.f90
execution started to XPASS not only at -O0/-O1, but at every optimisation
level.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-02-12 18:21:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Please also split the testcase - it contains
several tests and only one has invalid overflow.
Actually there are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-02-04 00:16:44
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-11-18 14:33:49 UTC ---
... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and remove
the XFAIL I introduced?
I cannot commit anything, but the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-10-23 13:55:24 UTC
---
Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and remove
the XFAIL I introduced?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-17
09:22:41 UTC ---
7.1.5.2.4 Evaluation of numeric intrinsic operations
The execution of any numeric operation whose result is not defined by the
arithmetic used by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-17
10:41:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
7.1.5.2.4 Evaluation of numeric intrinsic operations
The execution of any numeric operation whose result is not defined by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-17
18:51:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
but you'll see that at least one person disagrees with both
former J3 members.
The only way to get a definite answer is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2012-10-17 19:21:22 UTC ---
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:51:08PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The Standard does not define 'incremented' and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-15
11:49:08 UTC ---
If Fortran requires i to be HUGE(i) + 1 after the loop body then what does
it say about the overflow?
That is, what would be valid at the end of
17 matches
Mail list logo