--- Comment #34 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-04-09
21:06 ---
I thought we were going to wait for the vendor (Apple) to fix their complex
math subroutines.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333
--- Comment #5 from joseph dot h dot garvin at gmail dot com 2010-04-09
21:06 ---
As a separate affected user, might I ask you guys to reconsider again? If
you're writing a smart pointer class in C++, users expect that you will support
all the same operators with all the same semantics.
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:13 ---
Subject: Bug 43707
Author: uros
Date: Fri Apr 9 21:12:42 2010
New Revision: 158177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158177
Log:
PR target/43707
PR target/43709
* config/i3
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:13 ---
Subject: Bug 43709
Author: uros
Date: Fri Apr 9 21:12:42 2010
New Revision: 158177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158177
Log:
PR target/43707
PR target/43709
* config/i3
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-04-09 21:15 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-04-09 21:16 ---
This does not fail for me, but it should be the same problem as in PR43709.
Marking as fixed, please reopen if still fails on your target.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #16 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:19 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > On Darwin - I made it so that if -static-* is given for {stdc++,cc, fortran}
> > the specs cause a substitution for static libgomp. Would that work for you?
>
--- Comment #17 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:28
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Does that help?
Much. Thanks. :)
Don't know if this is still a problem, but #0 has:
> for libgomp, one can not simply use LDFLAGS=-static as libgomp pulls in
> libpthread and static li
For the test case:
program F03_2_9_3_5_2b
use omp_lib
implicit none
integer, parameter :: NT = 4
integer, parameter :: int64_t = selected_int_kind(18)
integer (kind=int64_t), parameter::DYNAMIC_MEMORY = 64000_int64_t
integer (kind=int64_t), parameter::ARRAY_SIZE = DYNAMIC_MEMORY/
--- Comment #4 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:34 ---
I don't think this is documented anywhere. Not in gcc at least.
POSIX says that for command line arguments "-a -d", "-d -a", "-da", and "-ad"
are all equivalent. Many GNU tools do not conform to this rule. A long
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:40
---
Try using -std=f90 with and without -pedantic. gfortran allows the missing
ampersand as an extension.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43712
--- Comment #6 from indy2718 at gmail dot com 2010-04-09 21:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=20353)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20353&action=view)
ICE on lambda
try to compile, ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43641
--- Comment #18 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:51 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Question being, is there a difference between darwin and, say, our average
> linux box, that allows static linking with the one, but not with the other?
yes, there is a significant differ
--- Comment #7 from indy2718 at gmail dot com 2010-04-09 21:51 ---
Independently received the same ICE on AMD64, trunk revision 157958. test.cpp
attached.
--
indy2718 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:52 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #4 from mika dot fischer at kit dot edu 2010-04-09 22:10
---
I'm Martin's coworker and want to add some additional points.
Just be be clear, this is not an exotic toy example, it is causing us real
problems with production code. Martin just stripped it down so it can be eas
--- Comment #5 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-09 22:16 ---
Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line
argument
On 04/09/2010 02:34 PM, wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> POSIX says that for command line arguments "-a -d", "-d -a", "-da", and "-ad"
> ar
--- Comment #2 from longb at cray dot com 2010-04-09 22:20 ---
OK, no need to worry about the simple.f90 case. The original test.f90 problem
is the only issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43712
--- Comment #35 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 22:30 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> I thought we were going to wait for the vendor (Apple) to fix their complex
> math subroutines.
We shouldn't be affected by the bug - so, great if it gets fixed, but we still
need to make
--- Comment #19 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-10 00:34
---
Subject: Bug 41912
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Apr 10 00:34:05 2010
New Revision: 158183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158183
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2009-12-05 John Da
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-10 00:37 ---
Subject: Bug 43458
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Apr 10 00:37:02 2010
New Revision: 158184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158184
Log:
PR target/43458
* testsuite/26_numerics/heade
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-10 01:38
---
I think the intent of these test is not to compare the strings but to see if
the pointers are pointing to the exact same string. You could have a situation
where the content of the strings is identical but they a
101 - 122 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
