Hi everybody,
I have done the minimum to make the testsuite failures to go
away(thanks, Jakub) and to fix the first (offline) reported bug.
Committed as r267946.
As to the location of ISO_Fortran_binding_2.h, I am open to proposed
fixes. Thomas kindly engineered that part of the original patch
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 08:05:59AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >It either should
> >#include "../../../libgfortran/ISO_Fortran_binding.h"
> >instead or the Fortran *.exp files should arrange for
> >-I.../libgfortran/
> >to be added to all gfortran tests. Because right now it FAILs if you
>
On January 15, 2019 12:07:53 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 06:35:20PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>> Done as revision 267884.
>
>The other tests FAILs too:
>FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess
>errors)
>UNRESOLVED:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:07:53AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 06:35:20PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > Done as revision 267884.
>
> Where is that header installed BTW?
> Would be best if it got installed in directories like:
>
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 06:35:20PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Done as revision 267884.
The other tests FAILs too:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_1.f90 -O0 compilation failed to
produce executable
Done as revision 267884.
Thanks again.
Paul
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 18:29, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Many thanks for the heads up. I had seen similar problems with the the
> second testcase and I thought that I had fixed them. I will delete
> them from the tree and will do
Hi Steve,
Many thanks for the heads up. I had seen similar problems with the the
second testcase and I thought that I had fixed them. I will delete
them from the tree and will do more work to fix the problem(s).
Cheers
Paul
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 17:17, Steve Kargl
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 12,
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 09:10:27AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 03:28:02PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > Committed as revision 267881. I removed the duplicate include file and
> > added some documentation, as suggested.
> >
> > Many thanks for
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 03:28:02PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Committed as revision 267881. I removed the duplicate include file and
> added some documentation, as suggested.
>
> Many thanks for all the help
>
Paul,
I'm seeing the following failures. Note, I have my
Hi Thomas,
Committed as revision 267881. I removed the duplicate include file and
added some documentation, as suggested.
Many thanks for all the help
Paul
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:19, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > This is an updated version of the earlier patch. The main addition
Hi Thomas,
Aaaah! Light bulb moment - I was looking in the $PREFIX/include directory.
For whatever reason, mine does not appear in lib64 but in lib. OK,
that will have to do for now because the patch is blocking my tree for
a number of other things. I'll fix Bernhard's nit and commit on
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:08 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>
> Thanks a lot for this! Looking at what we are currently
> finishing, I think we will be quite close to F2008 conformance
> when gcc 9 comes out, modulo a few bugs, of course.
And because ISO_Fortran_binding.h is part of Fortran 2018,
Hi Paul,
Incidentally, we need to make sure that it is distributed in the
include directory. I have yet to figure out how to do that.
It already does that, that was part of what I sent you :-)
It's the
+gfor_c_HEADERS = $(srcdir)/ISO_Fortran_binding.h
+gfor_cdir =
Hi Thomas,
> Is there any particular reason why you do not want to use
>
> ! { dg-additional-options "-I $srcdir/../../libgfortran" }
>
> in the test cases, and have it only once in the source trees?
I will make it so. Thanks for the reminder.
>
> However, I have no real strong opinion on this
Hi Paul,
This is an updated version of the earlier patch. The main addition is
a second testcase that checks the errors emitted by the CFI API
functions.
I notice that the header file ISO_Fortran_binding.h is found twice
in the patch.
Is there any particular reason why you do not want to use
15 matches
Mail list logo
