https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfc9f42122f41668b986126ba7e65e3dd8bf1e9e
commit r15-7732-gcfc9f42122f41668b986126ba7e65e3dd8bf1e9e
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have modified gcc.texi here to yield, after make info, the following pasted
out of my terminal viewing with info:
‘-x LANGUAGE’
Specify explicitly the LANGUAGE for the following input files
(ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #22 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 2/25/25 20:28, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to kargls from comment #20)
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
> >
> > What this is doing is invoking -std=legacy for files with suffixes that
> > imply legacy files such as .f
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #20 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
>
> What this is doing is invoking -std=legacy for files with suffixes that
> imply legacy files such as .f
>
> This is my first dive on the lang-spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 60593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60593&action=edit
Possible patch to change compile behavior
This patch changes the fortran/lang-spec.h as a possible better app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16)
> > Works using the correct compiler option. We probably should get rid of or
> > change the -x option or document it.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16)
> Works using the correct compiler option. We probably should get rid of or
> change the -x option or document it.
Is there a way to warn the user t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Do we close this bug as invalid or do we need to adjustsomething?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
the '-x f77' id documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Overall-Options.html#Overall-Options
All it does is tell the compiler the source is fixed form or free-form.
Admittedly that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 54267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54267&action=edit
FM509 that I have here.
This morning I also recall there was one NIST test that had an error. I
contacted the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:49:44AM +, ben.brewer at codethink dot co.uk
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #11 from Ben Brewer ---
> So I was using "-x f77" whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #11 from Ben Brewer ---
So I was using "-x f77" which I would expect to instruct the compiler to run in
a mode compatible with Fortran 77, it seems non-intuitive to have to enable
-std=legacy to compile the very tests which define f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 01:09:22AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Unbelievable! I found the fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The NIST files themselves are too large to attach here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 54263
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54263&action=edit
Reference files used by script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 54262
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54262&action=edit
Script used. may need to be adjusted for ones envoronment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Unbelievable! I found the folder in my test directory. The NIST test suite
passes as before with my test script using the latest gfortran trunk rev 13.
I do some comparisons way back with some example outpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:50:37PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> (In reply to Ben Brewer from comment #0)
> Workaround: either use -std=legacy or fix the above argument declaration to:
>
> CHARACTER C1D001(*)*8,CVD00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
25 matches
Mail list logo
