https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
John,
Your original case in Comment 1 now gives:
$ gfc original.f90
$ ./a.out
tstuff
fstuff
T
tstuff
fstuff
F
So I think it is OK, Harald's test case has function calls embedded in the
print sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36a4ee406b95ae24a59b8b3f8ebe29af6fd5261e
commit r13-4473-g36a4ee406b95ae24a59b8b3f8ebe29af6fd5261e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
uff = .false.
end function fstuff
end program testmerge10
Good luck with your bughunt!
John H
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 21:05:43 +
> From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
> To: John Harper
> Subject: [Bug fortran/107874] merge n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
> I don't recall having seen a mentioning in the standard of the order of
> evaluation of different function (or subroutine) arguments. Do you?
The closest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #18)
> An interesting problem! But I thought my original test case did not have
> recursive I/O because tstuff and fstuff each print something in the
> sta
07874] merge not using all its arguments
> Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 09:22:36 +1300 (NZDT)
> Resent-From:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
>
> --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16)
>&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #15)
> --- snip ---
> > Can you please verify?
>
> Yes, this fixes the test case.
OK, thanks for confirming.
> H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #15)
--- snip ---
> Can you please verify?
Yes, this fixes the test case. However if the orginal test case is valid
fortran we probably need to fix something else. Paul Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 54006
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54006&action=edit
Modified testcase
I found that I get a hang on my system when I specify -fopenmp.
It appears that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Now this is interesting.
Compling with -static I get:
$ gfc -static merge_1.f90
[jerry@r7laptop merge]$ ./a.out
tstuff
fstuff
T
tstuff
fstuff
F
tstuff
fstuff
T
tstuff
fstuff
F
tstuff
T
ts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
A debug session gives:
(gdb) c
Continuing.
^C
Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
futex_wait (private=0, expected=2, futex_word=0x405950) at
../sysdeps/nptl/futex-internal.h:146
146 int err =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And this is the output I'm getting on stdout:
tstuff
fstuff
T
tstuff
fstuff
F
tstuff
fstuff
T
tstuff
fstuff
F
tstuff
T
tstuff
F
fstuff
T
fstuff
F
Can you compare your output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am seeing timeout failures with merge_1.f90. Can you look into this?
Thanks,
Jerry
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, 12:28 PM anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs <
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3832c6f7e672e76bba74a508bf3a49740ea38046
commit r13-4394-g3832c6f7e672e76bba74a508bf3a49740ea38046
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 08:00:35PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
>
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch fixes comment#3:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
index 9c2fea8c5f2..2f69c4369ab 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> Harald, you are likely right the patch can be moved down. I'll programmed
> up the example from the Fortran 2018 standard, which works as expected. So,
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
C
24 matches
Mail list logo
