--- Comment #22 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 19:09
---
Subject: Bug 19303
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Mar 22 19:09:11 2006
New Revision: 112290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112290
Log:
2006-03-22 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #21 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-15 22:30 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 19303
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00980.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #20 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-13 17:53
---
I'll take this, implementing the simplistic approach
(generating an error for >2GB record sizes). This should
keep the complexity down.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #19 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 21:17
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Created an attachment (id=10564)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10564&action=view) [edit]
> patch against gcc-4.1-20051223
>
> As requested, I am posting Rob's patc
--- Comment #18 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-12-29 07:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=10564)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10564&action=view)
patch against gcc-4.1-20051223
As requested, I am posting Rob's patch which goes against the Dec 23 snapshot.
I di
--- Comment #17 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-12-26 15:54 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created an attachment (id=10296)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10296&action=view) [edit]
> Patch to change delimitters to 4 bytes for unformatted records
>
> This is ne
--- Comment #16 from rrr6399 at futuretek dot com 2005-11-19 20:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=10296)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10296&action=view)
Patch to change delimitters to 4 bytes for unformatted records
This is nearly the same patch that I posted befor
--- Comment #15 from milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-11-19 19:09 ---
I didn 't know how to compile gcc-4.1... so I couldn't reply before. I realised
I have to install both mpfr and gmp libraries for gcc to compile. It complains
only about gmp :-(
Yes, this patch works OK. I had to patch
--- Comment #14 from rrr6399 at futuretek dot com 2005-10-18 04:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=10015)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10015&action=view)
changes unformatted record delimitters to 4 bytes for compatibility with other
compilers
I modified gfortran to
--- Comment #13 from rrr6399 at futuretek dot com 2005-10-08 16:37 ---
FYI: The latest Cray, IRIX64 and Solaris fortran compilers all use 4 byte
record markers in their unformatted files and are hence interoperable. FWIW, I
think the Intel solution should be considered to support record
--- Additional Comments From rrr6399 at futuretek dot com 2005-09-12 02:20
---
FYI: Here's what Intel did for to address the record sizes larger than 2 GB:
http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/flin/docs/main_for/mergedProjects/bldaps_for/format_of_record_types_.htm
The nice
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-11
14:27 ---
*** Bug 23814 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From blime at cox dot net 2005-05-31 14:04 ---
Subject: Re: Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on
32-bit targets
I second the "thanks a million", and also don't think g77 belongs in
the option name.
I have been using a very fast sort program for large files
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-05-31 08:41
---
Great work! Thanks a million!
Somehow I also have a problem with the name of the option, since g77 has exactly
the same problem. When I compile with the g77 I get 8 byte headers on AMD64, so
the name g77 doesn'
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
02:45 ---
*** Bug 21621 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bdavis9659 at comcast dot net 2005-05-31
02:37 ---
proposed patch that should fix this problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-05/msg00431.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19303
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-21
13:53 ---
*** Bug 21673 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19303
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-14
23:05 ---
*** Bug 21570 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi 2005-02-18
23:42 ---
Somewhat related patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01085.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19303
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:46 ---
As I said before this really should be 64bit on all targets instead as we
should support LFS (large file
support) (which is deafualt really on all *BSD, darwin is included with this
*BSD).
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
