--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 06:19 ---
Oh, my example is just PR 20858. I think they are the same problem but I don't
know for sure.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 06:17 ---
Hmm, (I have not looked at the source yet but) I suspect we are not recording
the type of NULL so that we get a NULL without a kind.
This shows that I am more likely correct:
REAL, POINTER, DIMENSION(:,:) :: i
INTEGE
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 06:13 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> In fact, it regtests OK, apart from the above.
I want to say that PR 20881 is the same issue too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 06:09 ---
We should be erroring out before adding the symbol to namespace, which is not
happening.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 06:03 ---
This looks like another case for PR 14771.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 06:00 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Isn't this a dup of bug 19101?
No but it is related to it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19260
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:53 ---
Lahey's says:
2317-S: "SOURCE.F90", line 5, column 3: Shape of arrays on left and right
sides of assignment do not conform.
I think what is happening is that lbound's type is becoming a scalar and not an
array wi
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:47 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPE
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:44 ---
Actually this is not a dup of bug 20373. I don't know where I got that from.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:43 ---
I think in fortran 2003, the number of continuations went up, way up to around
255. (this is based on the May 2004 draft):
A statement shall not have more than 255 continuation lines.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:35 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Another one is the following (without any possible aliasing problems):
Actually that is still a violation of the aliasing rules, as you are acessing a
character as a Foo. Yes that is viol
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:32
---
Hmm, maybe there is really something else going on here:
struct noop_tD.1999 D.2016;
struct noop_tD.1999 predD.2575;
predD.2575 = (struct noop_tD.1999) D.2016;
Hmm, why is there a cast there? They are th
Hello everyone,
I am trying to compile glibc2.3.5 on Red Hat 9.0(2.4.20-8) on a x86
machine with
binutilies 2.16.1 installed on it but i am are getting an error :
.
checking for stdint.h... yes
checking for unistd.h... yes
checking for long double... yes
checking size of long double... 12
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 05:18
---
I am no longer working on this bug, from what I hear it is really just to
change the check "n_branch != 1" to "n_branch > 2" but I don't know if that is
true or not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25714
Take:
character(2) :: c
character(1) :: a
character(1) :: b
c = a//b
end
We get:
_gfortran_concat_string (2, str.1, 1, &a, 1, &b);
_gfortran_copy_string (2, &c, 2, str.1);
We should be able to get:
_gfortran_concat_string (2, &c, 1, &a, 1, &b);
Instead and get rid of the tempory vari
--- Comment #15 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-01-08 02:43 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:30:51AM -, Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot
uni-muenchen dot de wrote:
>
> I find this very offensive.
--- Comment #14 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
2006-01-08 02:30 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran
malitzke at metronets dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-01-07 20:30
> ---
> Not all
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 02:22
---
Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 02:21
---
Fixed in 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 02:17
---
Subject: Bug 25598
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jan 8 02:17:54 2006
New Revision: 109470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109470
Log:
2005-01-07 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 02:16
---
Subject: Bug 25598
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jan 8 02:16:11 2006
New Revision: 109469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109469
Log:
2006-01-07 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry for the previous blank email. I saw your name and email address on a
website and thought you might be interested in taking a look at my new site.
www.pixelsthatrock.com
If you are interested in trading links or something let me know. Thanks!
- Dan
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-01-08 01:58 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 12:33:29AM -, malitzke at metronets dot com wrote:
>
> Last things first: The code posted in 25705 is copyrig
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 01:56
---
Subject: Bug 24268
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jan 8 01:56:22 2006
New Revision: 109468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109468
Log:
2005-01-07 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 01:53
---
Subject: Bug 24268
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jan 8 01:53:06 2006
New Revision: 109467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109467
Log:
2006-01-07 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 00:51
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> As I am clearly no the author the the code, I have no real position to defend.
> As my post 25705 makes clear legalistic arguments should be avoided. I also
> coded a parallel C program
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 00:45 ---
I looked at what is going on here with "GNU C version 4.1.0 20060107
(prerelease) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)"
We produce the invalid insn in replace_store_insn, where we have:
(gdb) p debug_rtx(del)
(ins
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-01-08 00:33 ---
Last things first: The code posted in 25705 is copyrighted 1994 and published
in Computer Physics Communications; hence just modification by a third party
could be legally questionable. The two academics (one in comp
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 00:14
---
Working on a patch.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 22:23 ---
Subject: Bug 25662
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 7 22:23:27 2006
New Revision: 109456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109456
Log:
2005-01-07 Ian Lance Taylor
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PR
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-01-07 22:17 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 09:55:07PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> Well, in looking at the code in 25705, I think the c
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 22:00 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00416.html
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 21:55 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Not all of the underlying are just g77 features. Some like 18540/25705 are
> legal f90, f95, f06 code an just calling them "excremental" is unprofessional.
> This diminishes the 90% plus of d
--- Comment #7 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-01-07 21:46 ---
Subject: Re: named common block confused as procedure
- runtime segfault
> The enclosed patch catches Andrew's PR but also snags on
> g77/19990905-1.f (The Burley test case).
In fact, it regtests OK, apart from
--- Comment #6 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-01-07 21:44 ---
Subject: Re: named common block confused as procedure
- runtime segfault
Steve and Andrew,
>--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 20:19 ---
>Andrew, Lahey's code checking utility giv
Executing on host: /mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gc
c/ /mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-15.c -O2
-fdump-tre
e-vars -fno-show-column -S -o loop-15.s(timeout = 300)
cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-fdump-tree-vars"
compiler exit
--- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-01-07 20:30 ---
Not all of the underlying are just g77 features. Some like 18540/25705 are
legal f90, f95, f06 code an just calling them "excremental" is unprofessional.
This diminishes the 90% plus of dedicated people working on GCC
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 20:19 ---
Andrew, Lahey's code checking utility gives
Compiling program unit f at line 1:
Compiling program unit test at line 5:
Encountered 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 informations in file SOURCE.F90.
Compiling file SOURCE.F90.
N
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 19:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> ===
> *** gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 109449)
> --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (wor
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:41 ---
GCC 4.1-20060107 still produces the code reported in the original bug report:
:
0: 48 89 f8mov%rdi,%rax
3: 48 f7 d8neg%rax
6: 48 21 c7
--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:37 ---
I'm changing this to a target bug. The bug is in the define for
SECONDARY_MEMORY_NEEDED_RTX(MODE):
#define SECONDARY_MEMORY_NEEDED_RTX(MODE) \
gen_rtx_MEM (MODE, gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, GEN_INT (-
--- Comment #22 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:33 ---
I compiled the test case nodom.c with "xgcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20060107 (prerelease)"
and ran the resulting executables with "time ./a.out". And the numbers speak
for themsel
--- Comment #21 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:23 ---
Using ``.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.0 20060107 (prerelease)"'' on AMD64 with -m32,
I get the following assembly outputs:
options: -O2 -fno-tree-dominator-opts
.L2:
movl$videoram, %eax
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:14 ---
Subject: Bug 24940
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 7 18:14:24 2006
New Revision: 109453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109453
Log:
PR libgcj/24940
* shlibpath.m4: Replace $SED with
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:13 ---
Subject: Bug 24940
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 7 18:13:36 2006
New Revision: 109452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109452
Log:
PR libgcj/24940
* shlibpath.m4: Replace $SED with
--- Comment #2 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:09 ---
Actually, you got the syntax slightly wrong (sorry for not noticing it right
away).
The standard (and from my reading of the ibm docs it seems that they agree with
the standard) specifices the use statement as
use [[, m
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:04 ---
On AMD64 with GNU C version 4.2.0 20060107, I get this .optimized dump:
;; Function foo (foo)
foo (r)
{
int r$b;
int r$a;
char r$d;
:
r$b = r.b;
r$a = r.a;
r$d = r.d;
.m = r.m;
.b = r$b;
.a = r$a
--- Comment #3 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:02 ---
Confirmed
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 17:58 ---
Confirmed.
Incidentally, you can find the final draft of F2003 (which differs very little
from the published standard) at
http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 17:39 ---
BTW, this feature is actively being worked upon. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-12/msg00270.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25709
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 17:07 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note I think fixing PR 25710 and the mentioned problem of not keeping symbols
> correctly will fix this bug. I have been trying to fix this but it is hard.
I notice that there is a handle i
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:24
---
I forgot to say the loop now looks like:
L4:
sthx r0,r2,r11
addi r2,r2,2
bdnz L4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:23
---
Fixed in 4.2.0 by the patch which fixed PR 18527.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:20 ---
This was NOT fixed by the patch which fixed PR 18527.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25643
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:04 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:03
---
Fixed for 4.2.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:01 ---
This only happens with a non NULL pointer.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 15:33 ---
No feedback in 3 months (T-7 days).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 15:33 ---
No feedback in 3 months (T-2 days).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 15:11 ---
Oh, unlike the makefile in gcc/Makefile, there is @ there that makes everyone
confused.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25695
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 14:14 ---
Subject: Bug 20870
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 7 14:14:08 2006
New Revision: 109449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109449
Log:
2006-01-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 14:14 ---
Subject: Bug 25029
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 7 14:14:08 2006
New Revision: 109449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109449
Log:
2006-01-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 14:14 ---
Subject: Bug 22146
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 7 14:14:08 2006
New Revision: 109449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109449
Log:
2006-01-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 14:14 ---
Subject: Bug 21256
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 7 14:14:08 2006
New Revision: 109449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109449
Log:
2006-01-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 14:14 ---
Subject: Bug 20868
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 7 14:14:08 2006
New Revision: 109449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109449
Log:
2006-01-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-07 10:01 ---
Huh? We do in the toplevel make target "compare".
Paolo
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-07 10:01 ---
*** Bug 25694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-07 10:01 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25670 ***
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
71 matches
Mail list logo
