Am 28.03.25 um 20:35 schrieb Harald Anlauf:
Dear all,
I am going to commit the attached patch as obvious.
Pushed as r15-9016-gfb132276d17390.
Harald
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
Dear all,
I am going to commit the attached patch as obvious.
Harald
From 8ea7254f7042582afd4a9dba5a1dd379467f30ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:31:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: fix spelling of flag -fallow-invalid-boz
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* ch
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:04 AM NightStrike wrote:
>
> Between GCC 9 and 10, the following code now errors out:
>
> integer function fcn(x)
> implicit none
> integer, intent(in) :: x
> fcn = x * '0100'X
> end function fcn
>
> Error: BOZ constant at (1) uses nonstandard postfix syntax [see
>
Hi Jabuk!
Am 28.03.25 um 13:42 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
Hi!
Ok, here is a new version of the patch.
The current behavior in gfortran.dg/ and libgomp.fortran/libgomp.oacc-fortran
is that tests without any dg-do directive are implicitly dg-do compile
and tests with dg-do compile or without dg-do d
Hi!
Ok, here is a new version of the patch.
The current behavior in gfortran.dg/ and libgomp.fortran/libgomp.oacc-fortran
is that tests without any dg-do directive are implicitly dg-do compile
and tests with dg-do compile or without dg-do don't cycle through options
(-O is implicitly added but ca
Hi Steve,
Thank you sincerely for explaining the implementation and project details. I
will draft the proposal shortly and would appreciate discussing refinements
with you before the deadline.
Yuao
From: Steve Kargl
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 1:35
To: Yuao Ma
