https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103476
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
---
On 29.11.21 20:57, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103476
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
> 1202:$(srcdir)/generated/matm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de ---
Am 05.04.19 um 18:20 schrieb dominiq at lps dot ens.fr:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
>
> --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Testi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #18 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de ---
Am 02.04.19 um 20:48 schrieb anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org:
> I had rejected procedure arguments to TRANSFER in my initial patch, see
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
---
Am 29.08.2017 um 10:35 schrieb janus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
>
> --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
---
Am 03.07.2017 um 23:40 schrieb ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
> W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #48 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2013-02-18 21:29:22 UTC ---
Am 18.02.2013 20:15, schrieb dominiq at lps dot ens.fr:
> Are you suggesting to "fix" the non working named pipes on Darwin by removing
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #47 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2013-02-18 21:24:31 UTC ---
Am 18.02.2013 21:16, schrieb jb at gcc dot gnu.org:
>> Look at this piece of code:
>> >
>> > /* Seek to the head and overwrite the bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #41 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2012-12-23 15:09:59 UTC ---
Am 23.12.2012 15:16, schrieb dominiq at lps dot ens.fr:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
>
> --- Comment #40 from Dominiqu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #37 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2012-12-22 20:16:07 UTC ---
Hi Dominique,
> The best I can do (without understanding it) is
>
> (1) if I use dtruss (should be equivalent to strace) on a, I get
>
> [m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #35 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2012-12-22 15:38:08 UTC ---
> I still see
>
> status from open is0
> status from open is0
> At line 7 of file pr30162_1.f (unit = 20, file = &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54736
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2012-09-30 20:24:03 UTC ---
Am 30.09.2012 21:12, schrieb shart6 at utk dot edu:
> If n_elist = 1, then high = low = 0, and the funtion will always return 0,
> even
> if the unit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #26 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-11-26 09:22:15 UTC ---
Am 25.11.2011 18:44, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
>
> --- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #24 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-11-25 17:24:19 UTC ---
Am 24.11.2011 21:51, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> Thanks for the bugreport and the (valid)
> testcase.
>
To be pedantic, the test case was not valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-11-19 10:57:23 UTC ---
Am 19.11.2011 11:18, schrieb anlauf at gmx dot de:
> This won't work. The implementation of the management
> of temporaries does not allow that the same in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-10-11 18:03:56 UTC ---
To me, the right strategy appears to be to mark the temporary
variable as threadprivate if we are within an OMP block.
Does this sound right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-10-10 18:57:09 UTC ---
> implicit none
> integer :: i
> real :: A(5), B(5)
> B(1) = 3.344
> A = [real :: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
> !$omp parallel default(shared)
> !$omp workshar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-10-09 18:10:37 UTC ---
Am 09.10.2011 18:14, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
>
> --- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-10-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-05-16 18:10:03 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
> Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
> Structurally the patch is OK.
I think the logic could be as follows: You could ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-02-21 22:40:52 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
> (In reply to comment #7)
>> Any plan to backport the fix in revision 170317?
>
> I had not planned so to do but would respond positi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #25 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-01-16 16:23:29 UTC ---
Maybe it would be better to set the "inherited" pointer and target
attributes much earlier, in gfc_variable_attr. With a bit of luck,
things would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536
--- Comment #17 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-01-09 16:00:14 UTC ---
Am 09.01.2011 16:33, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536
>
> --- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-09
--- Comment #18 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2010-08-10 09:19 ---
Subject: Re: Unnecessary temporaries
Am Dienstag, den 10.08.2010, 08:45 + schrieb dominiq at lps dot ens
dot fr:
> I think that
>
> + identical_strides = gfc_dep_compare_expr (l_stride, r_strid
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2010-07-08 19:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] Unnecessary temporaries
increase the runtime for channel.f90 by ~70%
Hello Paul,
> That is the context - apply it and see.
What about
module baz
implicit none
conta
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2010-06-05 18:27 ---
Subject: Re: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I'm working on nested scalarization loops for the sum intrinsic
> (pr43829) ;
> inlining matmul should be s
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2010-05-16 19:03 ---
Subject: Re: dot_product / matmul and signed zeros
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The generated code is fine. The F2003 standard states on page 38.
>
>The real type includes a zero value. P
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2008-07-25 21:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] Spurious "ambiguous
reference to...ERROR"/ICE
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 21:44 +, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I think it was my mistake. I assume Phili
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2008-05-16 15:27 ---
Subject: Re: maxloc_bounds_[457].f90 fail with
-fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 21:48 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2008-05-04 10:15 ---
Subject: Re: run-time abort for PACK of run-time zero
sized array
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 09:59 +, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2008-01-05 11:48 ---
Subject: Re: bounds checking for array intrinsics
Hi Jerry,
> Do we want the overhead of bounds checking at run time on all these
> intrinsics?
In the case of no bounds checking, it's a single i
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2007-12-09 10:33 ---
Subject: Re: performance of pack/unpack
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:57 +, jvdelisle at verizon dot net wrote:
>
> --- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2007-12-08 21:57 ---
> Su
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2007-12-04 07:03 ---
Subject: Re: access="stream",form="formatted"
doesn't buffer
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 02:36 +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> $ strace -e write,read,_llseek ./a
--- Comment #15 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2007-11-03 20:19 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/gamma_5.f90
> --- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-11-03
> 19:37 ---
> Now, the hard part. The gfortran.dg/gamma_5.f90 test fails
32 matches
Mail list logo
