https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
Yes indeed. This has already been flagged up by the folk at Arm. I was
going to remove that test today. The functional test is done in
associate_70.f90 in any case.
Cheer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
I logged various regressions before going on vacation. I'll be back
in action next week.
Regards
Paul
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 at 20:58, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
--- Comment #2 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
I am away on business right now and cannot deal with this. The plan is to
revert the backport. Please feel free to do this because I am likely to be
seriously jet lagged over the weeke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83209
--- Comment #12 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Yes, indeed.
Thanks
Paul
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 12:28, vehre at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83209
>
> Andre Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103368
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
I simply copied all the associated functions in trans-expr.cc from mainline
and plonked them in 13-branch. That's why I said that I hadn't done any
weeding. There is also a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
After a lot of messing around, I managed to backport the patch; essentially
by hand. However, two of the testcases ICEd in trans-array.cc and so there
were obviously depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
I will have a stab at backporting r14-1629 later this afternoon and will
let you know what happens. I am just rebuilding after applying the fix for
pr112407 (yes, I did add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87448
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
I had forgotten about this PR because the fix became incorporated in the
patch for PR89645. In consequence, pr87448.f90 disappeared from the pr87477
failures :-)
One of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108961
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
I have just returned from a trip to the General Atomics DIIID facility
in San Diego and feel like death warmed up :-(
I'll try to get to the backport this afternoon once I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109066
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Steve,
Indeed - I found that paragraph shortly after writing. Thanks for posting
it.
Cheers
Paul
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 15:33, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104382
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Thomas,
My stepping out of gfortran activities has been for rather longer than I
expected. I had hoped to have completed the finalization work by now and to
have got on with fixing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Good morning all,
I have attached the revised patch and an additional testcase. I had totally
forgotten about the class pointer gotcha.
OK for master?
Paul
Fortran: Fix runtime err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96386
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Thomas,
When did it get fixed? I seem to have done so many associate fixes that I
barely know where to start - was it even me?
Lots of the recent PRs are low lying fruit. It's plea
13 matches
Mail list logo
