Re: Missing finalizations

Hi Paul, I'm following up on this as you requested. I won't be able to start looking into this seriously for a week or two anyway. Thanks, Andrew On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:51:00 PM PDT Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Not long before I had to step aside (temporarily, I hope)

Re: [Patch] Fortran: Fix -Wno-missing-include-dirs handling [PR55534]

Hi Tobias, Am 20.09.21 um 22:33 schrieb Tobias Burnus: And v3 – I realized that testcases would be useful. Thus, now with added testcases. :-) I was about to recommend a testcase I prepared when your revised patch arrived. Will not bother you with it, as you seem to provide really good covera

Re: [Patch] Fortran: Fix -Wno-missing-include-dirs handling [PR55534]

And v3 – I realized that testcases would be useful. Thus, now with added testcases. :-) Tobias On 17.09.21 20:45, Tobias Burnus wrote: I seemingly messed up a bit in previous patch – corrected version attached. OK? Tobias PS: Due to now enabling the missing-include-dir warning also for cpp,t

Harald Anlauf appointed Fortran Reviewer

I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed Harald Anlauf as a Fortran Reviewer. Please join me in congratulating Harald on his new role. Harald, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file. Happy hacking! David

Re: [Patch]GCC11 - Fortran: combined directives - order(concurrent) not on distribute (was: Re: [Patch] Fortran/OpenMP: unconstrained/reproducible ordered modifier)

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:01:32PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > On 20.09.21 11:55, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote: > > So the FE was splitting the order clause to distribute already before, > > perhaps we should undo that for gcc 11 which doesn't claim any OpenMP 5.1 > > support. > > The differen

[Patch]GCC11 - Fortran: combined directives - order(concurrent) not on distribute (was: Re: [Patch] Fortran/OpenMP: unconstrained/reproducible ordered modifier)

On 20.09.21 11:55, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote: So the FE was splitting the order clause to distribute already before, perhaps we should undo that for gcc 11 which doesn't claim any OpenMP 5.1 support. The difference is e.g. the distribute parallel do order(concurrent) copyin(thr) case which

Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Fixes for F2018 C838 (PR fortran/101334)

Hi Sandra, This patch fixes some bugs in handling of assumed-rank arguments revealed by the TS29113 testsuite, allowing xfails to be removed from those testcases.  It was previously failing to diagnose an error when passing an assumed-rank argument to a procedure via a non-assumed-rank dummy,

Re: [Patch] Fortran/OpenMP: unconstrained/reproducible ordered modifier

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:42:13PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Fortran/OpenMP: unconstrained/reproducible ordered modifier > > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > * gfortran.h (gfc_omp_clauses): Add order_unconstrained. > * dump-parse-tree.c (show_omp_clauses): Dump it. > * openmp.c (g

Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Fix testcases that violate C838, + revealed ICE

On 20.09.21 06:02, Sandra Loosemore wrote: This patch fixes 3 testcases that violate F2018 C838 by passing an assumed-rank argument to a procedure via an assumed-sized dummy, by wrapping the call in a SELECT RANK construct. But wait, there's more! This triggered an ICE due to a null pointer dere

Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Fixes for F2018 C838 (PR fortran/101334)

On 20.09.21 06:01, Sandra Loosemore wrote: This patch fixes some bugs in handling of assumed-rank arguments revealed by the TS29113 testsuite, allowing xfails to be removed from those testcases. It was previously failing to diagnose an error when passing an assumed-rank argument to a procedure v