On 9/18/23 1:27 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
as correctly analyzed by Jerry, the code for checking the consistency
of character lengths in array constructors did not properly initialize
the auxiliary variable used in "bounds checking". The attached patch
resolves this by
On 8/24/23 2:28 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch adds stricter bounds-checking for DATA statements
with implied-do. I chose to allow overindexing (for arrays of rank
greater than 1) for -std=legacy, as there might be codes in the wild
that need this (and this
On 8/9/23 7:58 AM, Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran wrote:
I took a look at my calendar and decided to backport right away.
r13-7703-ged049e5d5f36cc0f4318cd93bb6b33ed6f6f2ba7
BTW It is a regression :-)
Paul
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:10, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
Committed to trunk as
On 5/17/23 11:52 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch is neat, because it fixes a bug by removing code ;-)
When generating the initializer for a parameter array, we excepted
the case of size 0, which however prevented the detection of array
bounds violations and
I plan to commit the following as simple.
The issue was a value was being modified on a short namelist read. After
tthe first read gives the correct EOF, a second read would give the
error but modify the variable.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
index
On 5/6/23 11:15 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Hi Jerry, Steve,
I think I have to pour a little water into the wine.
The patch fixes the reported issue only for a comma after
the namelist name, but we still accept a few other illegal
characters, e.g. ';', because:
#define
The attached patch adds a check for the invalid comma and emits a
runtime error if -std=f95,f2003,f2018 are specified at compile time.
Attached patch includes a new test case.
Regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
OK for mainline?
Regards,
Jerry
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Fri May 5
On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
have accidentally matched "free" or "data",
On 4/10/23 1:49 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
when comparing formal and actual arguments of a procedure, there was no
check of rank for derived types from intrinsic module ISO_C_BINDING.
This could lead to a wrong resolution of generic procedures with dummy
argument of related
On 3/9/23 10:08 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached almost obvious patch fixes a NULL pointer dereference
in a check of a symbol with the bind(c) attribute.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This PR is marked as 10/11/12/13 regression, thus it should
On 3/3/23 3:32 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 3 Mar 2023, at 23:11, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote:
On 2 March 2023 02:23:10 CET, Jerry D wrote:
On 3/1/23 4:07 PM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:28:56PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
On 3/1/23 4:07 PM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:28:56PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote:
libgfortran/caf/single.c |6 ++
libgfortran/io/async.c |6 ++
libgfortran/io/format.c |3 +--
Pushed, thanks for feedback
On 2/26/23 11:54 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Just side remarks, the 0 init in the patch is fine.
On 27.02.23 03:53, Jerry D via Gcc-patches wrote:
regarding PACK: since this is a bogus warning as the compiler does
not realize that dim >= 1, wouldn't a
gcc_ass
d here
84 | index_type mstride[GFC_MAX_DIMENSIONS];
| ^~~
In a sense it is a regression. It showed up when builds started to use
-Wmaybe-unitialized.
Cheers,
Harald
Am 26.02.23 um 20:52 schrieb Jerry D via Gcc-patches:
The attached patch is minor and self explanato
The attached patch is minor and self explanatory. I assume this should
wait for gfortran 14 since no regression involved. Please advise otherwise.
Regression tested on x86-64.
OK for trunk when the time is right?
Regards,
Jerry
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Sat Feb 25 20:30:35 2023 -0800
On 2/6/23 12:10 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
as the PR shows, it is likely not a good idea to try to make an
ASSOCIATE variable static when -fno-automatic is specified, so
rather keep it on the stack.
Attached patch regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
Thanks,
On 2/5/23 11:33 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Early gentle ping.
Am 30.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches:
Dear Fortranners,
the subject says it all: in some cases we emit redundant integer division
truncation warnings (2 or 4), where just one would have been
On 1/28/23 9:07 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
a USE associated symbol shall not appear in a COMMON block
(F2018:C8121) and needs to be diagnosed. The patch is
fairly obvious.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
As the PR is marked as a 10/11/12/13 regression,
On 1/24/23 1:48 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
when checking expressions for array sections, we need to ensure
that these use only type INTEGER. However, it does not make sense
to generate an internal error when encountering wrong types,
but rather take the ordinary route of
Committed:
It is not apparent to me that the testsuite/ChangeLog was updated. Maybe
there is a time delay on that?
Please be patient with me as I figure out how all this works.
ommit f963705752e9d0b79a340788166269af417e344e (HEAD -> master,
origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: Jerry DeLisle
On 1/22/23 5:38 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
Hello,
Le 22/01/2023 à 00:59, Jerry D via Fortran a écrit :
(...)
Proposed ChangeLog entry using git gcc-commit-mklog:
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Sat Jan 21 15:47:19 2023 -0800
Revise the line end tests to pass on certain windows test
On 1/20/23 6:13 PM, Jerry DeLisle via Fortran wrote:
Hi all,
The attached patch modifies the following tests to check for line
endings. Some test environments inject superfluous /r characters at
ends of lines. The expression matching in dg-output tests are changed from:
(\n|\r\n|\r)
to
On 1/20/23 9:16 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 1/20/23 5:46 PM, Jerry D wrote:
A PARAMETER value is not allowed in a DATA statement, similar to an
EQUIVALENCE.
The check for this was in gfc_assign_data_value() in data.cc which
turns out to be too late when trying to assign a zero sized array.
On 1/20/23 5:46 PM, Jerry D wrote:
A PARAMETER value is not allowed in a DATA statement, similar to an
EQUIVALENCE.
The check for this was in gfc_assign_data_value() in data.cc which turns
out to be too late when trying to assign a zero sized array.
Correction, the chunk in data.cc must
A PARAMETER value is not allowed in a DATA statement, similar to an
EQUIVALENCE.
The check for this was in gfc_assign_data_value() in data.cc which turns
out to be too late when trying to assign a zero sized array.
To correct this, the check is moved to match_variable() in primary.cc
where
On 1/18/23 7:42 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Reported by nightstrike, who also tested this patch.
On Windows, we call system() which works as described at
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/system-wsystem?view=msvc-170
Namely, it only fails with "-1" if the command
On 1/11/23 4:06 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
Ping -- the '-mframe-malloc-threshold' idea, at least.
Note that while this issue originally did pop up for Fortran I/O, it's
likewise relevant for other functions that maintain big frames, for
example in newlib:
On 12/23/22 6:08 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On 2022-11-11T15:35:44+0100, Richard Biener via Fortran
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 3:13 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
For example, for Fortran code like:
write (*,*) "Hello world"
..., 'gfortran' creates:
struct __st_parameter_dt
On 12/17/22 1:21 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the previous fix for pr103505 introduced a regression that could lead
to wrong array bounds when LBOUND/UBOUND were used in the array spec
of a declaration. The reason was that we tried to simplify too early
the array element
I have committed the obvious as simple.
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e76cd96950f49ce21246d44780e972d86b2bcdd
commit r13-4862-g7e76cd96950f49ce21246d44780e972d86b2bcdd
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Thu Dec 22 20:38:57 2022 -0800
Remove not
On 12/19/22 2:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 09:12:43AM -0800, Jerry D via Gcc-patches wrote:
The attached patch fixes a regression and is a patch from Steve. I have
regression tested it and provided a test case. It is fairly simple and I
will commit under the "s
Hi all,
The attached patch fixes a regression and is a patch from Steve. I have
regression tested it and provided a test case. It is fairly simple and
I will commit under the "simple" rule in a little while.
Thanks Steve for Patch. Thanks Harald for helping me get back up to
speed on the
On 12/10/22 1:23 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
I'm submitting the attached patch on behalf of Steve.
It fixes an ICE that occurs on an obscure use of a
statement function as argument to that function.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
Thanks,
Harald
OK,
Hi Herald,
Looks good to me. I have always preferred informative messages.
Thanks,
Jerry
On 7/14/22 1:34 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch introduces error recovery for two cases of using
an invalid array in a declaration of an implied-shape array instead
of
Yes, Thank you Mikael!
On 4/22/22 6:59 AM, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote:
Hi Mikael,
Ping for the four patches starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057757.html
On 4/4/22 12:09 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Am 29.03.22 um 23:41 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Fortran:
Dear all,
during error recovery on invalid declarations of functions as
coarrays we may hit multiple places with NULL pointer dereferences.
The attached patch provides a minimal and
On 4/4/22 12:04 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
Steve's analysis (see PR) showed that we confused the case when a
symbol refererred to a recursive procedure which was named the same
as an intrinsic. The standard allows such recursive references
(see e.g. F2018:19.3.1).
The
On 2/23/22 2:21 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear Fortranners,
Fortran 2018 added a QUIET= specifier to STOP and ERROR STOP statements.
Janne already implemented the library side code four (4!) years ago,
but so far the frontend implementation was missing.
Furthermore, F2018 allows for
For what it is worth.
On 2/10/22 11:49 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Hi Paul,
Am 10.02.22 um 13:25 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Conclusions on ifort:
(i) The agreement between gfortran, with the patch applied, and ifort is
strongest of all the other brands;
(ii) The
Remember the days when reading very old cryptic Fortran code? Remember
the fixed line lengths and cryptic variable names!
I fear the Standards committee has achieved history with the Standard
itself it is so difficult to understand sometimes.
Cheers to Paul and Harald for digging on this.
On 1/13/22 12:56 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
there was a regression handling overloaded elemental intrinsics,
leading to an ICE on valid code. Reported by Urban Jost.
The logic for when we need to scalarize a call to an intrinsic
seems to have been broken during the
Looks OK.
Cheers
On 10/29/21 11:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran wrote:
ping
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:57:04 +
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
Aids debugging the fortran FE.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-11-12 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
*
Looks good and simple. Proceed. Thanks
Jerry
On 10/28/21 5:05 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran wrote:
ping
[Rebased, re-regtested cleanly. Ok for trunk?]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:57:31 +
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
compiling
This one looks OK. Sorry I missed it earlier. Thanks again for the patch!
Jerry
On 10/9/21 12:27 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
*Ping*
Am 03.10.21 um 21:20 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Fortran:
Dear Fortranners,
when initializing parameter arrays from scalars, we did handle only
the
On 10/8/21 2:33 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear Fortranners,
F2018:10.1.5.5.1(2) requires the same interpretation of old and new-style
relational operators. We internally distinguish between old and new style,
but try to map appropriately when used.
This mapping was missing when
Harald,
Looks good. OK and thanks for your time and efforts.
Jerry
On 9/23/21 12:47 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear Fortranners,
we missed certain intrinsics as being disallowed in constant expressions,
which lead to an ICE when these intrinsics were used in a specification
Good to go Tobias.
Jerry
On 7/14/21 5:50 AM, Burnus, Tobias wrote:
Ping**2
On Juli 8, 2021 I wrote:
*Ping*
I intent to incorporate Sandra's suggestions, except for the beginning of line
spacing - that's needed to avoid exceeding the 80 character line limit. I did
not include an updated
Looks OK Thomas,
Good for backport as well.
Regards,
Jerry
On 7/4/21 9:09 AM, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote:
Hello world,
after a bit of an absence, I am now back, at least for some regression
fixing (and for reviewing patches, if that is called for).
So, here's a regression fix to start
yes, please commit
On 5/21/21 8:08 AM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 10:09:02AM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Ping, ping!
Please find attached a rebased version of the patch for the RANDOM_INIT issue
with coarray Fortran. Nothing changed to the previous version,
49 matches
Mail list logo
