https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #36 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #35)
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:22:12 2015
New Revision: 221473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221473root=gccview=rev
Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #38 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Mar 18 01:47:12 2015
New Revision: 221482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221482root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-17 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #36)
--snip---
are you sure that .and.ing the conditions in the testcase is correct,
or shouldn't they rather be .or.ed?
Oh of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #35 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:22:12 2015
New Revision: 221473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221473root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #34 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:04:58 2015
New Revision: 221472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221472root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:01:54 2015
New Revision: 221471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221471root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #32 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
Jerry,
to give you some positive feedback: I'm now using your latest patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00067.html
It works for me.
Thanks,
Harald
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #31 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have generated a test case that includes all possible combinations and found
some issues with the patch related to Real (KIND 10). I am working this now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Clean patch to avoid the errors: variable '*' set but not used
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c2015-01-17 21:48:17.0
+0100
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Bootstrapping with the patch in comment 26 fails with
/opt/gcc/build_w/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/opt/gcc/build_w/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.10w/x86_64-apple-darwin14.1.0/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #30 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #28 and #29)
Thanks for checking and I have the cleanup taken care of. I am making some
adjustments to avoid ABI issues as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #27 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #26)
Created attachment 34819 [details]
Updated full patch.
Revised to fix error shown in Comment #22
The new patch does indeed fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34798|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #24)
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #22)
count_rate(8),count_max(1) =0 127
OK, but the last line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #23 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
Created attachment 34798 [details]
Full Patch
This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
it.
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #22 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
Created attachment 34798 [details]
Full Patch
This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
it.
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #22)
count_rate(8),count_max(1) =0 127
OK, but the last line looks strange: lacking documentation,
I'd expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34798
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34798action=edit
Full Patch
This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #19)
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #17)
Created attachment 34765 [details]
Handle KIND=1 and KIND=2
Jerry,
I applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #19 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #17)
Created attachment 34765 [details]
Handle KIND=1 and KIND=2
Jerry,
I applied your patch on top of rev. 220730.
Unfortunately it ICEs on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34771
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34771action=edit
A test case
Current results with attached test case.
$ ./a.out
KIND=1: 34 1 127
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34765
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34765action=edit
Handle KIND=1 and KIND=2
This updated patch gives a proposed way to handle KIND=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15)
I was looking at this one just the other day. There are three PRs related
to SYSTEM_CLOCK that we should attempt to close. I will look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #14 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34488
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34488action=edit
Updated partial patch
This modified partial patch addresses the potential performance issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34374
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34374action=edit
Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #10)
Created attachment 34374 [details]
Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
The patch in comment #10 is a way to produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #12 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #10)
Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
Thanks for the partial patch. Some quick critique:
- it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #13 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #12)
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #10)
Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
Thanks for the partial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #9 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
reading the standard, indeed it seems like count_rate can be real as well...
same rules here *4 - _4 *8 - _8.
As a side remark the following generates a slightly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
Modifying the test code as follows:
% cat gfcbug128b.f90
program gfcbug128b
integer(4) :: count_rate, count_max
call system_clock (count_rate=count_rate,count_max=count_max)
call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #0)
I just discovered that the 20141227 snapshot breaks SYSTEM_CLOCK when
the COUNT_RATE argument is a 32-bit integer:
Confirmed. Probably due to r211686.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #4)
I'm not sure this is a bug, but this was definitely by design (as the
comment indicates). I think this is allowed by the successive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5)
Also, the presence of a second argument (see comment #1) should
not change the behavior.
To make that explicit:
% cat gfcbug128c.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5)
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #4)
If you have another idea, please post a list of what you think should happen
in all
42 matches
Mail list logo
