[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-12 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-12 14:36 --- Subject: Bug 43320 Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Mar 12 14:36:16 2010 New Revision: 157405 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157405 Log: 2010-03-12 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-11 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 11:08 --- (In reply to comment #10) I plan to commit the following as a compromise. We have had several PRs here that contradict. I am not sure whether the PRs really contradict as they just ask do what the other

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-11 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 14:20 --- If someone confirms SPEC is cleared, please close. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43320

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-11 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-11 14:24 --- You can find my SPEC CPU pass/fail results at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/ The last one is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg00855.html --

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-11 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 14:35 --- Closing. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 12:35 --- Last known good rev. 157294, first known bad rev. 157328 (x86_64). Last known good rev. 157304, first known bad rev. 157331 (ia64). Points at: Index: libgfortran/ChangeLog

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 12:40 --- Richard, how new is this regression? That is: Which check-ins could have causes this? Assuming that CPU SPEC is run every day, I assume that it is the patch for PR 43265; namely commit

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 13:20 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup Dear All, Paul, I think you are the only gfortraner, which has access to SPEC CPU 2000. Can you have a look? I am still recuperating from

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
-- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot |

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 14:31 --- The SixTrack souce code can be found at http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/code-tracking.htm Namely: http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/SixPack.zip

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 14:39 --- Reproduce using: 1. Grab SixTrack.zip (see comment 4) 2. Change in track.f, line 4411 in (i,1x,... the i into an i0 3. Grab the input file

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 14:52 --- Reduced test case: Reading from a completely empty line should produce an EOF status. As soon as there is a \n or or 0, ifort, NAG f95 and gfortran 4.3/4.5 also succeed (i.e. have no EOF error.) That's kind of the

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 16:31 --- Even though this is Fortran being able to build run SPEC is release critical. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 19:44 --- I will get on this tonight. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 20:21 --- I am fairly sure its the hit_eof I removed from next_record_r in transfer.c. When I get to my work machine I will fix either by reverting or otherwise. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43320

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 01:56 --- I plan to commit the following as a compromise. We have had several PRs here that contradict. Not surprising really. The compromise is to use item_count to decide whether to hit_eof or not. We could also do

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 02:15 --- Subject: Bug 43320 Author: jvdelisle Date: Thu Mar 11 02:15:33 2010 New Revision: 157377 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157377 Log: 2010-03-10 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/43320] [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup

2010-03-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 02:26 --- Subject: Bug 43320 Author: jvdelisle Date: Thu Mar 11 02:26:36 2010 New Revision: 157378 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157378 Log: 2010-03-10 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org