https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland ---
Sorry I was out for a while.
I was trying to figure out if there was some table of allowed characters we
should use. Also, C23 needs this too IIUC and I was wondering if we should
coordinate.
It looks l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland ---
Created attachment 57019
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57019&action=edit
Add a flag to only allow new chars in c++26.
Here s a patch that adds and checks a flag in libcpp and also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland ---
Probably should. I'll see how to do that.
I might have to set up the lang flag and all that unless someone beats me to
it.
I was going to say that the error on the stringification is possibly correct.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland ---
Created attachment 57018
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57018&action=edit
Get the raw string literal to compile.
I just added the new characters to lex_raw_string and got
const cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland ---
The example in the paper:
--
/*
gcc -E charset.c > charhelp.c
gcc -o charhelp charhelp.c
*/
#include
#define STR(x) #x
int main()
{
printf("%s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-// std::initializer_list support -*- C++ -*-
+// Three-way comparison support -*- C++ -*-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 89022, which changed state.
Bug 89022 Summary: Implement P0202R3 - C++20 Constexpr Modifiers to Functions
in and Headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think we're done.
The __cpp_lib_constexpr may not do anything or may not be in the newest drafts
anymore. We should probably kill it. I was very confused as people were going
back and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46598|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |10.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
N.B. This 'bug' and the patches apply both to the 'regular' Laguerre polynomial
laguerre(n,x) and to the associated Laguerre polynomial assoc_laguerre(n,m,x).
Note that this ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46598
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46598&action=edit
Obvious patch...
2019-07-14 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The standard shows the definitions based on the Rodrigues formulae for x >= 0.
So maybe this is an extension in the strictest sense.
Are the Rodrigues formulae only valid for x >= 0. I
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The associated Laguerre polynomial should allow negative arguments.
It's not often used for negative arguments but it's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88330
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I saw this through reddit:
https://gitlab.com/lock3/gcc-new.git branch origin/contracts-jac-kona
This user has several interesting branches of contracts and concepts!
Wiki: http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88102
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The Wiki I noted was a 3rd party one.
This is the wiki connected to the repo:
https://gitlab.com/lock3/gcc-new/wikis/contract-assertions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88102
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I saw this through reddit:
https://gitlab.com/lock3/gcc-new.git branch origin/contracts-jac-kona
This user has several interesting branches of contracts and concepts!
Wiki: http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 88996, which changed state.
Bug 88996 Summary: Implement P0439R0 - Make std::memory_order a scoped
enumeration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Wed Mar 6 13:38:32 2019
New Revision: 269423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-06 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon Mar 4 20:11:14 2019
New Revision: 269372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-04 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, the legendre functions should not be onstrained on the argument x either.
They are just polynomials. The recursions are numerically good in this range
(|x| > 1) also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It looks like try blocks in constexpr is in. p1002r1. This may be enough to
do some constexpr library bits.
: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Almost everything in is constexpr.
This requires C++20 language relaxation of constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45502&action=edit
New patch, C++20 only, several fixes, no memory_order ops.
Retesting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was a bit surprised I "needed" these. There are apparently some uses of
these.
I'll roll back and show you...
/home/ed/obj/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still testing BTW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Basically make memory_order an enum class and make constexpr aliases to teh old
names.
Without breaking ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
--- Comment #11 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The work for preprocessor/83063 may have impacted this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It looks like this went in.
If so we should check it off on the status page.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45423
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45423&action=edit
Final patch that passes.
2018-01-14 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0487r1.html
TL;DR Just like deletion of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45414
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45414&action=edit
This is a patch on both std and tr1, both sph_legendre and assoc_legendre.
2018-01-11 Edwar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 88327 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for missing this message. You're right.
Ditto for sph_legendre.
Putting together a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #6)
> > How precise is hypot supposed to be? I know it is supposed to try and avoid
> > spurious overflow/underflow, but I am not convinced th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What does this do?
auto __hi_exp =
__hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
Sorry, I have no simd knowlege yet.
Anyway, doesn't the larg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right. fma is irrelevant.
I will wind up with sqrt(1 + __lo).
I won't hope that max * __scale == 1 here but just add 1. And why waste the
partial sort?
New patch tomorrow a.m. (I guess I&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have this in another tree which solves the inf issue:
namespace __detail
{
// Avoid including all of
template
constexpr _Tp
__fmax3(_Tp __x, _Tp __y, _Tp __z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88336, which changed state.
Bug 88336 Summary: Implement P0595R2, C++20 std::is_constant_evaluated
(compiler magic library tool).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88336
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88336
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88341
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Tue Dec 4 16:26:39 2018
New Revision: 266788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266788&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-03 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88341
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've got a simple fix.
I can verify that it works but how do you run the testsuite for c++11?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Never mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
LOL, this compiles:
// P1330R0 - Changing the active member of a union inside constexpr
union Foo
{
int i;
float f;
};
constexpr int
use()
{
Foo foo{};
foo.i = 3;
foo.f = 1.2f;
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45150
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45150&action=edit
Special case REALPART_EXPR, IMAGPART_EXPR in cxx_eval_store_expression.
Obeying the smart
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88338
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We may be able/probably should? support both TS and std.
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I remember seeing a patch kit go by...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00292.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00293.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While updating libstdc++ for constexpr operators I came across this:
__real__ _M_value += __z.real();
is not constexpr even though
__real__ _M_value = __z.real();
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
--- Comment #10 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll look at updating the pedantic warn patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Sun Nov 18 18:32:26 2018
New Revision: 266252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-16 Michele Pezzutti
Edward Smith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Fri May 11 01:44:05 2018
New Revision: 260149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
correct changelog!
2018-05-10 Edward Smith-Rowla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Thu May 10 13:59:52 2018
New Revision: 260115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The fact that Boost followed us into this makes the situation interesting. We
are the only two impls that I know of. I like the std convention slightly
better but maybe we should ask for a lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #12 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, all other stuff is rolled back except for this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #11 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, I had an ugly morning with svn.
Hopefully the bits are rolled back.
That chunk is 83140.
Ed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #9 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon May 7 16:59:08 2018
New Revision: 260008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-07 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon May 7 16:23:29 2018
New Revision: 260006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-07 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon May 7 16:19:34 2018
New Revision: 260005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-07 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon May 7 16:17:32 2018
New Revision: 260004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-07 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon May 7 15:55:11 2018
New Revision: 260001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-07 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44079
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44079&action=edit
Patch for trunk and branch-8.
Ok, i was looking at backporting this and there are two more pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm now of the opinion that we should push these down.
At least gcc-7.
That's what I'm doing with the specfun bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44047
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44047&action=edit
This adds a defaulted arg to the underlying __assoc_legendre_p for phase.
2018-05-02 Edwar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon Apr 30 19:51:13 2018
New Revision: 259777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-30 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We fixed this a long time ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In a way, I *am* treating this as a char array n the C side and it would
probably be most correct to have
character(kind=c_char) thing(42).
and get
char thing[42];
honestly.
Is there a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Withe the following change
>
> --- pr84073.f90 2018-01-26 22:48:32.0 +0100
> +++ pr84073_db.f902018-01-27 0
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43260&action=edit
Module wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83803
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43110&action=edit
patchlet (untested)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83744
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43067&action=edit
Changing logical to integer works...
Changing logical to integer works...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83744
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43066
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43066&action=edit
module with logical that ices.
I have problems with logical too.
ed@bad-horse:~/ARAPP/diff
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43065
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43065&action=edit
The little molule th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Thu Apr 20 15:41:59 2017
New Revision: 247027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-20 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69905
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32187
--- Comment #10 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Tue Aug 16 14:56:55 2016
New Revision: 239504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Commit Joseph Myers Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
