http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #52 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-05-05 12:30:38 UTC ---
On 05/05/2011 04:01 AM, ebay.20.tedlap at spamgourmet dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
>
> --- Comment #51 from Lionel GUEZ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-05-05 12:28:01 UTC ---
On 05/05/2011 12:04 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
---snip---
> As much as I'd like t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #48 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-05-04 12:30:59 UTC ---
On 05/04/2011 05:15 AM, ebay.20.tedlap at spamgourmet dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #47 from Lionel GUEZ
> 2011-05-04 12:15:16 UTC ---
> (In reply to co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-29 15:55:14 UTC ---
On 04/29/2011 12:14 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
---snip---
>
> The suggested patch fails on examples in this test where d>0.
>
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-24 23:54:11 UTC ---
On 04/24/2011 02:41 PM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
>
> --- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-24 23:24:53 UTC ---
On 04/24/2011 02:41 PM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
>
> --- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48684
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-23 21:50:54 UTC ---
On 04/23/2011 02:27 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
--- snip ---
>
> Unpatched gfortran and ifort give:
I meant patched gfortran and ifor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48720
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-22 12:46:16 UTC ---
On 04/21/2011 09:08 PM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
--- snip ---
>>
>> I think we are not handling the 'q' as any more than an exponent marker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-17 13:47:06 UTC ---
On 04/17/2011 06:25 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
--- snip ---
>
> I agree.
>
> Let's open a new bug for this. This bug is about t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-16 14:38:23 UTC ---
On 04/15/2011 11:42 PM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> m< 0.1 - 0.1 * r * rexp_d
> m< 0.1 * (1.0 - r * rexp_d)
>
Of course. I am al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-03 21:14:41 UTC ---
On 04/03/2011 12:49 PM, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloeckner 2011-04-03
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-01-15 14:51:00 UTC ---
> Just to be sure, I suspect it would be prudent to set opp->file to NULL and
> opp->file_len to 0 in tempfile() in case fd< 0. Or are we sure that the
12 matches
Mail list logo
