Re: [Patch, fortran] PR121182 - F2018 GENERIC statement is missing

2025-07-31 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 01:34:14PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > It seems that > > module foo > implicit none > private > public bar > generic :: bar => bar, bah > end module > > is not accepted. > As a follow-up, this is accepted with yo

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR121182 - F2018 GENERIC statement is missing

2025-07-31 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 05:53:17PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > > Regtests on x86_64/FC42 - OK for mainline? > Here's another testcase that fails. % gfcx -o z a_gen2.F90 && ./z 42.000 43.500 % gfcx -o z -DGEN a_gen2.F90 a_gen2.F90:9:21: 9 |generic :: ba

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR121182 - F2018 GENERIC statement is missing

2025-07-31 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 05:53:17PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > The attached implements the F2018 generic statement, which has the same > semantics as the typebound version but can appear in any specification > statement. > > As it says in the first comment in the patch, use is made of t

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR121182 - F2018 GENERIC statement is missing

2025-07-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:29:37PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > - I am a little confused about the handling of the access specification. > After the first "public :: g", NAG complains about the > > generic, public :: g ... > > and only allows > > generic :: g ... > > Then duplicate pub

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Remove useless elements count variable

2025-07-28 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 02:47:14PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: > From: Mikael Morin > > Regression-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > OK for master? > Looks ok to me. Of course, the last time I reviewed one of your patches, polymorphism got in the way of what appeared to be straight forward clea

Re: [PATCH] fortran: implment split for fortran 2023

2025-07-26 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 11:57:50PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > On 7/26/2025 11:25 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 09:14:43PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > > + add_sym_4s ("split", GFC_ISYM_SPLIT, CLASS_IMPURE, > > > + BT_UNKNOWN, 0, GFC_

Re: [PATCH] fortran: implment split for fortran 2023

2025-07-26 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 09:14:43PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > + add_sym_4s ("split", GFC_ISYM_SPLIT, CLASS_IMPURE, > + BT_UNKNOWN, 0, GFC_STD_F2023, > + gfc_check_split, NULL, gfc_resolve_split, > + "string", BT_CHARACTER, dc, REQUIRED, INTENT_IN, > + "set"

Re: Questions on `scan` Intrinsic Implementation (For Fortran 2023 `split` procedure)

2025-07-19 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 12:39:00AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > On 7/18/2025 11:43 PM, Yuao Ma wrote: > > I noticed that hex(16128084538487209988) evaluates to > > 0xdfd27774, and it looks like the higher bits weren't being > > zeroed out as expected. After I explicitly added pos = > > convert(g

Re: Questions on `scan` Intrinsic Implementation (For Fortran 2023 `split` procedure)

2025-07-18 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 12:08:44AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > On 7/18/2025 3:16 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > I am wondering whether we should implement it – for kind=1 (and at > > least  for set len=1) by a call to BUILT_IN_MEMCHR / BUILT_IN_MEMRCHR. > > For set len > 1, a loop around

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Factor array descriptor references

2025-07-15 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 10:59:32AM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: > > Regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > OK for master? > Yes, with one observation below. > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc > index 1561936daf1..af62e17442b 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/tran

ICE with new IMPORT feature

2025-07-12 Thread Steve Kargl
All, Paul, In testing Paul's recent addition of support for IMPORT, I have uncovered an ICE due to mangled source code. The code leads to a NULL pointer dereference. The patch that follows my .sig fixes the issue. Note the testcase has one FAIL. % gmake check-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=impor

Adding IMPORT changes to release notes?

2025-07-12 Thread Steve Kargl
All, Paul recently committed a change that brings gfortran's IMPORT statement into conformance with the Fortran 2018 and 2023. (Thanks, Paul!). Here's a note for the Release Notes. I'm not who needs to approve this or who can actually do the commit. diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-16/changes.html b

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR120711, v1] 1/(3) Fix out of bounds access in cleanup of array constructor

2025-07-09 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 08:50:08AM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > why shall the testcase be invalid? See the 2nd bullet in Fortran 2023, 9.7.1.3 Allocation of allocatable variables. An allocatable variable has a status of "unallocated" if it is not allocated. ... An allocata

Re: [PATCH, v2] Fortran: fix minor issues with coarrays (extended)

2025-07-07 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > Andre, > > I still don't get it, and the present version made it worse for me... > > So let's see what I was thinking. There are the following types of > functions: > > (0) impure, non-elemental functions, which likely have side-e

Re: [PATCH] libgfortran: add fallback for trigonometric pi-based functions

2025-07-07 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 09:09:53PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > On 7/6/2025 6:34 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > As that commit is from 2020 and 2.69 in from 2012, it seems as if your > > autoconf is too new. Can you re-check that the right version is at the > > beginning of the PATH? > >

Re: [PATCH] libgfortran: add fallback for trigonometric pi-based functions

2025-07-05 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 08:43:06AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On 7/6/2025 12:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > > diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure > > > index 9898a94a37

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR106135 - Implement F2018 IMPORT statements

2025-07-05 Thread Steve Kargl
Paul, Either resolve.cc has sufficiently evolved since you submitted your patch or the patch is somehow mangled. When I apply it to my tree for resolve.cc, I see Hunk #1 succeeded at 3919. Hunk #2 succeeded at 4223. Hunk #3 succeeded at 7940 (offset -28 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 8068 (offset

Re: [PATCH] libgfortran: add fallback for trigonometric pi-based functions

2025-07-05 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure > index 9898a94a372..971f1e9df5e 100755 > --- a/libgfortran/configure > +++ b/libgfortran/configure > @@ -16413,7 +16413,7 @@ else > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to b

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Add the preliminary code of MOVE_ALLOC arguments

2025-07-03 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 10:12:52PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: > From: Mikael Morin > > Regression-tested on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu. > OK for master? > Yes. Almost looks obvious once someone finds and fixes the issue. Thanks for the patch. -- Steve

Re: [PATCH] libquadmath: add quad support for trig-pi functions

2025-07-03 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 02:43:43PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2025, Yuao Ma wrote: > > > This patch adds the required function for Fortran trigonometric functions to > > work with glibc versions prior to 2.26. It's based on glibc source commit > > 632d895f3e5d98162f77b9

Re: [PATCH] libquadmath: add quad support for trig-pi functions

2025-07-02 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 12:56:24AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > This patch adds the required function for Fortran trigonometric functions to > work with glibc versions prior to 2.26. It's based on glibc source commit > 632d895f3e5d98162f77b9c3c1da4ec19968b671. > > I've built it successfully on my en

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR120843, v3] Fix reject valid, because of inconformable coranks

2025-07-02 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 04:36:38AM -0700, Damian Rouson wrote: > git branch > gir checkout > git add > git commit > git rebase > git push > > It’s time to move beyond emailing patches! (Please.) I don't use git other than 'git clone', 'git reset --hard', and 'git diff'. If gfortran development

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-30 Thread Steve Kargl
Andre, I've never built gcc for aarch64-freebsd. I was going to suggest doing the full bootstrap, but that seems to be too slow. On amd64, I use ../gcc/configure --prefix=$WDIR \ --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto \ --enable-bootstrap \ --disable-nls \ --disable-libssp \ --disa

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 06:54:53PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 03:30:21PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:07:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:35:39AM -0700,

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
Yet, another head scratcher. ../../../gcc/libgfortran/caf/shmem/supervisor.c:235:27: error: 'environ' undeclared (first use in this function) 235 | for (char **e = environ; *e; ++e, ++n) | ^~~ I see 'extern char **environ;' in shmem.c. Is this sup

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 07:06:57PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 06:54:53PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > /usr/local/bin/ld: cannot find -lcaf_shmem: No such file or directory > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > compiler exited

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 06:54:53PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > /usr/local/bin/ld: cannot find -lcaf_shmem: No such file or directory > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > compiler exited with status 1 > > The freshly built gfortran cannot find the libcaf_shmem.a.

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 03:30:21PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:07:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:35:39AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > === gfortran Summary === > > > > &g

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:07:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:35:39AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > === gfortran Summary === > > > > # of expected passes73149 > > # of unexpected failures522 I

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 08:36:38PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > I would do git am pr88076_v1_1.patch or patch -p1 each of the patch files. Then they go where they ought to be. Thanks. I needed -p1 for v1_5 and v1_6. > Pro tip: create a new branch before doing the git am, then you can ju

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:35:39AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Just applied the 6 patch (with the update part 5). I'm > seeing a significant increase in the number of failures > in 'make check-fortran' testing. > Just re-applied your patches in the top-level g

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:35:39AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > === gfortran Summary === > > # of expected passes73149 > # of unexpected failures522 > # of expected failures 343 > # of unresolved testcases 78 >

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 10:15:01AM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > I deem this library fit for educational and research use, > where small to medium sized problems are researched. I do > not expect it to support a long term running application, > because is does not join adjacent blocks in th

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 0/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > this series of patches (six in total) adds a new coarray backend library to > libgfortran. The library uses shared memory and processes to implement > running multiple images on the same node. The work is based on work starte

Re: [PATCH 16/17] Fortran: Silence a clang warning (suggesting a brace) in io.cc

2025-06-25 Thread Steve Kargl
Thanks for cleaning up gfortran code. I was curious about what the GNU Coding Standard said about this case, but it does not consider initialization of subobjects. I did find 5.3 Clean Use of C Constructs ... Don't make the program ugly just to placate static analysis tools such as l

Re: [PATCH 07/17] gfortran: Avoid freeing uninitialized value

2025-06-25 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 04:09:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > When compiling fortran/match.cc, clang emits a warning > > fortran/match.cc:5301:7: warning: variable 'p' is used uninitialized > whenever 'if' condition is true [-Wsometimes-uninitialized] > > which looks accurate, so t

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 6/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-25 Thread Steve Kargl
test. There will be bugs, because nobody is perfect. > > @Steve caf_shmem does not use MPI. It is a shared memory, single node, multi > process approach. Just to prevent any misunderstanding. > > Thanks for all the testing. > > Regards, > Andre > > On Tue, 24

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix ICE in verify_gimple_in_seq with substrings [PR120743]

2025-06-24 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:00:46PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > here's an obvious fix for a recent regression: substring offset > calculations used a wrong type that crashed in gimplification. > Andre basically OK'ed it in the PR, but here it is nevertheless. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-g

Re: [Patch, Fortran, Coarray, PR88076, v1] 6/6 Add a shared memory multi process coarray library.

2025-06-24 Thread Steve Kargl
Damian, I submitted a patch a long time ago to make -fcoarray=single the default behavior. The patch made -fcoarray=none a NOP. With inclusion of a shmem implementation of the runtime parts, this might be the way to go. I'll leave that decision to Andre, Thomas, and Nicolas. I believe that the

Re: [PATCH, part1, v2] Fortran: various fixes for STAT/LSTAT/FSTAT intrinsics [PR82480]

2025-06-17 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:05:34PM +0300, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 9:41 PM Harald Anlauf wrote: > > > > Am 16.06.25 um 02:18 schrieb Steve Kargl: > > > Harald, > > > > > > I did a quick glance at the patch and did not see anything

Re: [PATCH, part1, v2] Fortran: various fixes for STAT/LSTAT/FSTAT intrinsics [PR82480]

2025-06-15 Thread Steve Kargl
would overflow assignment to integer(kind=4), and does not > return ERANGE as in v1 of this patch. There is no need to modify > the existing testcasese stat_{1,2}.f90. > > Cheers, > Harald > > Am 12.06.25 um 22:12 schrieb Harald Anlauf: > > Hi Steve, > > > > On 6

Re: [PATCH, part1] Fortran: various fixes for STAT/LSTAT/FSTAT intrinsics [PR82480]

2025-06-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:18:37PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the attached patch is a first attempt to fix some issues with the GNU > intrinsics STAT/LSTAT/FSTAT which are g77 heritage. This patch is > preparatory for dealing with the issue reported in PR82480 in that > the default version o

Re: [PATCH] libfortran: Regenerate files

2025-06-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 02:34:09PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote: > > In commit 5e918a4db9e4a5bdbeafec6881fa8b22a55d3789, regenerated files > were not included in the commit as they should have been. Therefore, a > whitespace fix was not propagated. Sync generated files now, as obtained > from a run wit

Re: Execution time for gfortran regression testing

2025-05-30 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 09:03:27PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the time needed for running the gfortran testsuite has increased so > much that I am looking for options to get this down to something > that is more bearable when working on a Fortran-only patch. > > I am already building with --

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: parameter inquiries of constant complex arrays [PR102599,PR114022]

2025-05-30 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:37:49PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > here's a patch fixing the handling of parameter inquiries of > constant complex arrays. It profits from previous fixes for > inquiries of substrings and essentially adds only the simplification > of %re/%im applies to complex arra

Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Bug 119856 - Missing commas in I/O formats not diagnosed by default at compile time.

2025-05-28 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:11:05AM -0700, Jerry D wrote: > The attached patch is simple and self explanatory in the git log entry. > > Regression tested on X86_64-linux-gnu. > > OK for trunk? > Yes, with one question. > commit 845768cbead03f76265e491bcf5ea6de7020ff39 > Author: Jerry DeLisle >

Re: [PATCH] fortran: add constant input support for trig functions with half-revolutions

2025-05-27 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:17:46PM +, Yuao Ma wrote: > > I've reverted the recent format changes, as three reviewers indicated they > caused more harm than good. > Thank you. > Are there any functional problems I need to address? I did not see any additional functional issues. Patch is OK

Re: [PATCH] fortran: add constant input support for trig functions with half-revolutions

2025-05-26 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 09:30:59AM +, Yuao Ma wrote: > Hi Steve, > > > I looked at the patch in a bit more detail, and > > I am not thrilled with large-scale whitespace > > changes mingled with functional changes. It makes > > the patch harder to read and review. > > I'm not sure which file y

Re: [PATCH] fortran: add constant input support for trig functions with half-revolutions

2025-05-25 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 04:56:48AM +, Yuao Ma wrote: > > Thanks for your review! I've updated the patch. > > > this range_check() is unneeded. > > Done. > > > As a side note, the error message is slightly misleading > > (although it will not be issued). Technically, x = -1 or 1 > > are all

Re: [PATCH] fortran: add constant input support for trig functions with half-revolutions

2025-05-23 Thread Steve Kargl
Apologies for late a late reply. A quick skim of the code suggests that you can eliminate some of the range_check() calls in the simplifications. For example, you have +gfc_expr * +gfc_simplify_acospi (gfc_expr *x) +{ + gfc_expr *result; + + if (x->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT) +return NULL;

Re: [patch, fortram] Bug 120049 - ICE when using IS_C_ASSOCIATED ()

2025-05-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the new logic misses the following bad code: > > print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), 42) > > This now ICEs here. > > I suggest to not 'return true' too early before all arguments > have been checked. > Good catch, Harald. We

Re: [patch, fortram] Bug 120049 - ICE when using IS_C_ASSOCIATED ()

2025-05-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 08:30:09PM -0700, Jerry D wrote: > Attached patch fixes this by checking for BT_VOID and EXPR_FUNCTION. > > Thank you for guidance from Steve in the PR and Vincent for > identifying the problem. > > Two test case files added to the testsuite. > > Regression tested on x86_

Re: Fortran 15.0.1 treats "shiftl" as impure

2025-04-16 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 04:44:23AM +, ZAPART CHRISTOPHER ANDREW wrote: > > After a recent upgrade from Fedora 41 to 42 the gfortran got updated from 14 > to 15.0.1: > > [chris@fedora FITSWEBQLSE]$ gfortran --version > GNU Fortran (GCC) 15.0.1 20250329 (Red Hat 15.0.1-0) > > The new version

Re: GSoC[Fortran Runtime argument check ] Draft of Proposal and some doubts about the needs

2025-04-07 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 02:42:10PM +0800, Gwen Fu wrote: > Thanks for your reply ! > >The word "parameter" has very a specific meaning in Fortran. The > >entity that is passed into a function or subroutine is an "actual > >argument". The entity within the functions associated with the > >"actual ar

Re: GSoC[Fortran Runtime argument check ] Draft of Proposal and some doubts about the needs

2025-04-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 03:16:45PM +0800, Gwen Fu wrote: > My doubt : > 1.Does the compilation option only need to support fortran versions above > 9, o5r does it also need to support fortran 77? gfortran started life as a Fortran 95 compiler. It should support anything that is Fortran 95 or late

Re: GSoC Fortran – 2018/202x – Inquiry About Project Scope

2025-04-05 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:43:49PM +, Yuao Ma wrote: > > Thanks for sharing more details. I’ve realized that implementing half-cycle > trig functions can be quite tricky. If I get the chance to refine the patch, > I’d like to go through each function one by one (if the reviewers don’t mind), >

Re: porting-to update request

2025-04-04 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 02:40:06AM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > > Is this email list still active? :) Are you subscribed to the list? First reply: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-March/061963.html Second reply: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-March/061981.html -- Steve

Re: GSoC 2025 - Draft Proposal for Fortran 2018/202x - RFC

2025-03-31 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 02:06:31PM +, Yuao Ma wrote: > > I have uploaded a draft proposal for the 'Fortran – 2018/202x' project to the > platform. You can also find a PDF version at this Google Drive link: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cSRPuWpXWHMwHdNItQluEYspLfylqZcU. I rarely follow ra

Re: porting-to update request

2025-03-28 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 02:02:03PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > > Should I open a bugzilla PR about this? > Submit the 3-character patch to fix the error to point to -fallow-invalid-boz instead of the negative form -fno-allow-invalid-boz, which seems to have led to a manner of confusion. Other th

Re: GSoC Fortran – 2018/202x – Inquiry About Project Scope

2025-03-26 Thread Steve Kargl
starting point for the project! > > Yuao > ____ > From: Steve Kargl > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 2:25 > To: Yuao Ma > Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GSoC Fortran – 2018/202x – Inquiry About Project Scope > > I've already written a prototype of the half-cycl

Re: porting-to update request

2025-03-25 Thread Steve Kargl
TL;DR version: fix your code. On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:04:52AM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > Between GCC 9 and 10, the following code now errors out: > Did you read the Release Notes for 10.1? Under the Fortran header: The handling of a BOZ literal constant has been reworked to provide

Re: [GSoC]Fortran – run-time argument checking

2025-03-25 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 08:34:51PM +0800, Gwen Fu wrote: > I found out that "-fcheck=*" is an option for runtime checking, but the > relevant options are commented out. > OPT_fcheck_ = 1070,/* -fcheck= */ > /* OPT_fcheck_assert = 1071, *//* -fcheck=assert */

Re: [Patch, Fortran] C prototypes for functions returning C function pointers

2025-03-24 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Regression-tested. Again no test case because I don't know > how. During testing, I also found that vtabs were dumped, > this is also corrected. > > OK for trunk? Thanks for working on this, but ... > > /* This section deals

Re: GSoC Fortran – 2018/202x – Inquiry About Project Scope

2025-03-24 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 08:46:50PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 8:25 PM Steve Kargl > wrote: > > > > I've already written a prototype of the half-cycle trig > > functions. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1131

Re: GSoC Fortran – 2018/202x – Inquiry About Project Scope

2025-03-24 Thread Steve Kargl
I've already written a prototype of the half-cycle trig functions. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152 There are two issues that need to be address. First, some operating systems provide half-cycle trig functions in their libm. The initial patch tries to use libm functions if f

Re: [COMMITTED] libgfortran/intrinsics: Fix build for targets with int32_t=long int

2025-03-24 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 10:09:46AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > By the way, the standard just specifies integer for 'dim' in reduce, > > which I take to mean it should be default_integer_kind. > > Hmm... I'm not sure that this is actually the case; I believe it > can actually be a

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix bogus bounds check for reallocation on assignment [PR116706]

2025-03-19 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:08:58PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the attached patch addresses an actually very long-standing issue > with bogus bounds checks for components of nested derived types in > assignments when an intermediate level has the POINTER attribute > instead of the ALLOCATABLE

Re: [patch, Fortran] Fix PR 119157, regression with -Wexternal-argument-mismatch

2025-03-08 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:52:06PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > the attached patch fixes an ICE regresseion where undo state was not > handled properly when generating formal from actual arguments, which > occurred under certain conditions with the newly introduced > -Wexternal-argument-mismatc

Re: [Ping, Patch, www-docs, Fortran, Coarray-ABI] Announce coarray-ABI changes in gfortran-15

2025-03-06 Thread Steve Kargl
Andre, Here's a bit of wordsmith. I removed the abbreviation "Esp." I'm not sure if there is additional markup needed; especially, with the "-fcoarray=single" I inserted. Coarray support has been reworked to allow access to components in derived types that have not been compiled with coarray

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: improve checking of substring bounds [PR119118]

2025-03-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:49:08PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > Thanks for the speedy review! > It was a bit easier than normal. After I submitted the PR, I started to poke around in fortran/resolve.cc to see if I could deal with the issue. I saw that you grab the PR last night, and left yo

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: improve checking of substring bounds [PR119118]

2025-03-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:04:08PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > this patch fixes an interesting regression that prevented substring > bounds checks from being generated if the substring start was not a > variable, but rather a constant or an expression. > > The fix I chose turned out to be a l

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR77872, v1] Fix ICE when getting caf-token from abstract class type.

2025-03-03 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 03:58:24PM +0100, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > attached patches fix a 12-regression, when a caf token is requested from an > abstract class-typed dummy. The token was not looked up in the correct spot. > Due the class typed object getting an artificial variable for direct d

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix front-end memleak after failure during parsing of NULLIFY

2025-03-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the attached patch fixes a front-end memleak that is seen when > running f951 under valgrind and while parsing invalid uses of > NULLIFY. > > I had this in my tree for some time without any problems, in an > attempt to further red

Re: [patch, Fortran] Fix PR 118862, overwide shft

2025-02-16 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 09:36:20AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > this patch is a variation of Jakub's patch in the PR, which > avoids overflow on the mask used for exponentiation and > fixes unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT. I tried testing this on > a POWER machine, but --with-build-config=bootstrap-ubs

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix initialization of allocatable non-deferred character [PR59252]

2025-02-07 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:31:12PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > Looks reasonable. > While it is a really old bug but wrong code, I'd like to backport > this also at least to 14-branch. Any reservations? If it passes regression testing,

Re: How to do a seek (nonadvancing read) on a stream file?

2025-02-03 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 01:34:09PM -0500, Andi McClure wrote: > > open(10,file=path,access='stream',form='unformatted',action='read',iostat=file_error) You opened the file with form='unformatted'. > READ (iu,"()", ADVANCE='NO', POS=file_pos) ! iu is file unit You then try to use a format statem

Re: gfortran not following deferred initialization rules for get_command_argument

2025-02-02 Thread Steve Kargl
> Summary: It is my opinion from the FORTRAN 2023 spec that the first test > program above should have worked and the additional steps in the second > test program should not have been necessary. Have I misread the spec, is > there something wrong with my code, or have I identified a bug in gfortra

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: different character lengths in array constructor [PR93289]

2025-02-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 09:49:17PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > Am 01.02.25 um 21:03 schrieb Steve Kargl: > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:25:51PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > > > > > the attached patch downgrades different constant character lengths in an > >

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: different character lengths in array constructor [PR93289]

2025-02-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:25:51PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the attached patch downgrades different constant character lengths in an > array constructor from a GNU to a legacy extension, so that users get a > warning with -std=gnu. We continue to generate an error when standard > conforman

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR108434 - [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

2025-01-13 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 01:23:58AM +0100, Manfred Schwarb wrote: > Am 11.01.25 um 07:36 schrieb Steve Kargl: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > >> > >> As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name &g

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR108434 - [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

2025-01-10 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name > out of a total of 54 for fortran and libgfortran. It's time that some of > these bugs are swatted, I think :-) > PR 70949 appears to have been fi

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR108434 - [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

2025-01-10 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name > out of a total of 54 for fortran and libgfortran. It's time that some of > these bugs are swatted, I think :-) > This patch fixes PR71844. As th

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: implement F2018 intrinsic OUT_OF_RANGE [PR115788]

2025-01-10 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 09:41:13PM +, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > There is one question to the reviewer(s), or those knowing better > than me how to handle IEEE infinity and NaN: with -Ofast, I needed > to add "-fno-finite-math-only" to the new testcase > gfortran.dg/ieee/out_of_range.f90, as the

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR108434 - [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

2025-01-10 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name > out of a total of 54 for fortran and libgfortran. It's time that some of > these bugs are swatted, I think :-) > When I was much more active in a

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Bump MOD_VERSION to "16" [PR118337]

2025-01-08 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > As mentioned in the PR, there is a *.mod incompatibility between GCC 14 and > GCC 15, at least when using iso_c_binding or iso_fortran_env intrinsic > modules, because new entries have been added to those modules in the middle, > c

Re: [patch, doc, Fortran] Further documentation of UNSIGNED

2025-01-07 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 03:28:31PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hello world, > > the attached patch does what it says in the ChangeLog entry. > > Tested with "make dvi" and "make pdf". > > OK for trunk? > OK. -- Steve

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: potential aliasing of complex pointer inquiry references [PR118120]

2024-12-19 Thread Steve Kargl
I'm ok withi your patch. It seems to also catch PR113928. You may want to give others a chance to chime in. -- steve On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:34:38PM +, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > the check for potential aliasing of lhs and rhs currently shortcuts > if the types differ. This is a problem

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR117643] Implement F_C_STRING()

2024-12-18 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:09:26AM -0800, Jerry D wrote: > On 12/18/24 4:11 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > Hi Steve, > > > > thanks for the draft patch. > > > > I haven't looked close enough, but you may have to add support > > for 'asis' being an optional dummy variable.  The following > > example

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR117643] Implement F_C_STRING()

2024-12-18 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 01:11:14PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: > > I haven't looked close enough, but you may have to add support > for 'asis' being an optional dummy variable. The following > example crashes here with a segfault: > (program snipped for brevity) > > There are other intrinsics

[Fortran, Patch, PR117643] Implement F_C_STRING()

2024-12-17 Thread Steve Kargl
All, First, I would like to thank both mikael and fx for providing help in my debugging of the in-lining in trans-intrinsic.cc. It seems I have forgotten much of what I once knew about trees. I have attached a patch that implements F2023 F_C_STRING() to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR107635, Part 1] Rework handling of allocatable components in derived type coarrays.

2024-12-17 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 04:53:42AM -0800, Damian Rouson wrote: > including automatic GPU offloading. Then a few months ago, the death blow > that I couldn’t work around was robust support for kind type parameters. > gfortran doesn't have robust kind type parameters? % cat xx.f90 program foo

Re: insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-15 Thread Steve Kargl
I have taken the attempt at inlining f_c_string() as far as I can. The WIP patch is attached to the PR along with the final issue that I cannot resolve. If anyone wants to finish the patch, feel free to do so. -- Steve

Re: insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-13 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 03:09:57PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 10:54:03PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote: > > Le 13/12/2024 à 21:55, Steve Kargl a écrit : > > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 06:39:19PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > &

Re: insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-13 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 10:54:03PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote: > Le 13/12/2024 à 21:55, Steve Kargl a écrit : > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 06:39:19PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > I've an almost complete implementation of F_C_STRING, > > > but need

Re: insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-13 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 06:39:19PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I've an almost complete implementation of F_C_STRING, > but need a bit of insight on the inlining that I'm > trying to implement. In pseudo-code, F_C_STRING is > > case 1. f_c_string(string)

Re: insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-10 Thread Steve Kargl
FX, You're likely correct that the creation of an expression for c_null_char is overkill. I copied the code from gfc_conv_concat_op() in trans-expr.cc to get the 'f_c_string(s) -> trim(s) // c_null_char'. This was the motivation of creating a string. If I look at the -fdump-tree-orginal for

Re: insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-10 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:05:02AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote: > Hi Steve, > > > I've an almost complete implementation of F_C_STRING, > > but need a bit of insight on the inlining that I'm > > trying to implement. > > Maybe I can help. Can you send in your current patch? > FX, I've attached the

insight needed on trans-* hacking

2024-12-09 Thread Steve Kargl
All, I've an almost complete implementation of F_C_STRING, but need a bit of insight on the inlining that I'm trying to implement. In pseudo-code, F_C_STRING is case 1. f_c_string(string) = trim(string) // c_null_char case 2. f_c_string(string, asis=.false.) = trim(string) // c_n

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: passing inquiry ref of complex array to assumed rank dummy [PR117774]

2024-11-25 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:05:49PM +, Harald Anlauf wrote: > Dear all, > > the attached patch fixes an ICE when passing an inquiry reference of a complex > array to an assumed-rank dummy argument by terminating the search for the > array reference before we hit the inquiry reference. (The arr

Re: *PING* [PATCH 0/7] fortran: Inline MINLOC/MAXLOC with DIM [PR90608]

2024-11-18 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 01:01:39PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote: > Le 30/10/2024 à 23:00, Harald Anlauf a écrit : > > > > given that Jakub changed lots of whitespace in r15-4624-g50332a4fdd3243, > > you may want to rebase your patches onto HEAD of trunk. > > > > May I also suggest to attach the patc

  1   2   3   4   >