https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Bug 88076 depends on bug 97530, which changed state.
Bug 97530 Summary: Segmentation fault compiling coarray program with option
-fcoarray=shared (not with -fcoarray={lib,single})
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97530
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #18)
> Created attachment 46723 [details]
> Compiler Diff
>
> I accidentally attached an old patch, here is the right one :) And thanks
> for helping, Jerry, what wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46714|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am getting this at the moment after applying patches to trunk.
../../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c: In function ‘tree_node*
gfc_trans_deallocate(gfc_code*)’:
../../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c:6925:4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #15)
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 08:33:04PM +, koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I'm still working on it (slowly, though, sorry :( ). Here is a diff of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 08:33:04PM +, koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm still working on it (slowly, though, sorry :( ). Here is a diff of my
> current trunk. I don't know what exactly chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #14 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46715&action=edit
Library Diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45669|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45536|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45535|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Sorry for the late reply, there was a sad incidence with my laptop and ice
cream :D
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #8)
> (In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
>
> > I actually opted to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #8 from Damian Rouson ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
> I actually opted to use multiprocessing with shared memory (shm_open() & co)
> instead of multithreading, since it will be much easier and faster with
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Koenig ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #5)
> This is an exciting idea. When I gave some thought to writing a
> shared-memory alternative coarray ABI, it seemed to me that pthreads would
> be a better choic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
Correction to the end of the first sentence of the final paragraph in Comment
5: "... not join them _until_ the end."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #5 from Damian Rouson ---
This is an exciting idea. When I gave some thought to writing a shared-memory
alternative coarray ABI, it seemed to me that pthreads would be a better choice
than OpenMP. Part of the problem is that I was c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Created attachment 45536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45536&action=edit
library
Here is the library. At the moment, it has an interprocess allocator and
handles the creation and reap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Created attachment 45535
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45535&action=edit
Proof-of-concept
As a little update, here is a proof-of-concept patch. It adds a new coarray
option -fcoarray=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Koenig ---
> Once you are done on this, you might consider implementing a -parallel as in
> ifort.
>
> This could conveniently be triggered in frontend-passes.c, I suspect. ie.
> this would be a good place to check fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
> I have opened this bug to track the progress and provide a forum for
> discussion :)
Nicolas,
Once you are done on this, you might consider implementing a -parallel as in
ifort.
This could conveniently be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
21 matches
Mail list logo
