Re: [patch, libgfortran] Further fixes for GFC/CFI descriptor conversions

Hi Sandra, On 19.08.21 05:57, Sandra Loosemore wrote: This patch addresses several bugs in converting from GFC to CFI descriptors and vice versa. [...] The root of all the problems addressed here is that GFC descriptors contain incomplete information; in particular, they only encode the size of

Re: Failing tests after applying patches?

Hi Tobias, thanks for these tips - this should come in handy indeed. One thing though: when I tried to run my freshly built gfortran compiler on one of the test programs, I got the message that it could not find the file libgfortran.spec. Is there some environment variable that muist be set? Reg

Re: Failing tests after applying patches?

Hi Arjen, On 23.08.21 20:59, Arjen Markus via Fortran wrote: as promised, here is an overview of the unexpectedly failing tests. I got these after applying the patches by Steve Kargl for bug ID 101951 and 101967. The platform I used to build it is Cygwin on WIndows 10. FAIL: gfortran.dg/analyze

Failing tests after applying patches?

Hello, as promised, here is an overview of the unexpectedly failing tests. I got these after applying the patches by Steve Kargl for bug ID 101951 and 101967. The platform I used to build it is Cygwin on WIndows 10. FAIL: gfortran.dg/analyzer/pr96949.f90 -O (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfor

Re: F2018 C937

Hi Steve, yes, the extra macro did the job, so the testuite has run. So, this means the patch has to be adapted. I will report the unexpectedly failing tests in a separate mail. Regards, Arjen Op ma 23 aug. 2021 om 19:18 schreef Steve Kargl < s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>: > Hi Arjen, >

Re: F2018 C937

Hi Arjen, Don't know if you've made any progress with cygwin (yes, I saw the other thread). I lurk on the J3 Fortran mailing list, and have come to learn that C937 has been deleted in the draft for Fortran 202x. What this means is that the "gcc_error ()" statement will need to be changed to use

Re: [Patch] Fortran/OpenMP: strict modifier on grainsize/num_tasks + duplicate errors (was: [committed] openmp: Add support for strict modifier on grainsize/num_tasks clauses)

On 23.08.21 14:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 02:14:46PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: + unsigned capture:1, grainsize_strict, num_tasks_strict; Missing :1 twice. Fixed. Well spotted! Otherwise LGTM, though maybe it would be better to commit separately the change to handle

Re: [Patch] Fortran/OpenMP: strict modifier on grainsize/num_tasks + duplicate errors (was: [committed] openmp: Add support for strict modifier on grainsize/num_tasks clauses)

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 02:14:46PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h > +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h > @@ -1490,7 +1490,7 @@ typedef struct gfc_omp_clauses >unsigned inbranch:1, notinbranch:1, nogroup:1; >unsigned sched_simd:1, sched_monotonic:1, sched_nonmonotonic:1

[Patch] Fortran/OpenMP: strict modifier on grainsize/num_tasks + duplicate errors (was: [committed] openmp: Add support for strict modifier on grainsize/num_tasks clauses)

Hi Jakub, hi all, On 23.08.21 10:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The following patch implements it for C and C++. The attached patch now adds Fortran support for it, which is a small change - the two testcases (in 4 files) are the converted C ones. Additionally, the previous diagnostic for duplicate

Re: Build problems: mpfr, mpc

I defined both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS as -D_GNU_SOURCE and it did the trick. I see a number of unexpected failures in the log, so I will look into those. But the good news is that the procedure does work. Regards, Arjen Op vr 20 aug. 2021 om 15:17 schreef Arjen Markus : > Ah, thanks, I restarted t