On 13 November 2022 21:29:50 CET, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>Replacing "int" by "signed char" adds confusion and makes code
>less understandable, so I would oppose it, as we don't solve a
>real problem and rather add confusion.
Ok so consider the non-bool hunks dropped, they just fell out of my helpe
Am 13.11.22 um 09:51 schrieb Andreas Schwab:
This breaks aarch64:
$ /opt/gcc/gcc-20221113/Build/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/gcc-20221113/Build/./gcc/
-B/usr/aarch64-suse-linux/bin/ -B/usr/aarch64-suse-linux/lib/ -isystem
/usr/aarch64-suse-linux/include -isystem /usr/aarch64-suse-linux/sys-include
Am 13.11.22 um 11:39 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 12:13:26 +0200
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:47 AM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote:
--- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
@@ -1135,7 +1135,7 @@ compare_com
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 12:13:26 +0200
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:47 AM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
> wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> > @@ -1135,7 +1135,7 @@ compare_complex (gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr *op2)
> > strings. We re
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:47 AM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote:
> --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> @@ -1135,7 +1135,7 @@ compare_complex (gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr *op2)
> strings. We return -1 for a < b, 0 for a == b and 1 for a > b.
> We use the proces
Le 09/11/2022 à 21:50, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit :
Dear all,
Jose posted a patch here that was never reviewed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056162.html
I think the diagnostics improvement is helpful, as it adjusts
to the changes from F2003 to F2008.
The patch suf
. the number of passed arguments was varying...)
>
> Testcase cross-checked with NAG 7.1.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This breaks aarch64:
$ /opt/gcc/gcc-20221113/Build/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/gcc-20221113/Build/./gcc/
-B/usr/aarch64-suse-linux/bin/ -B/usr/aarch64-s
