On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:37:49PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> here's a patch fixing the handling of parameter inquiries of
> constant complex arrays. It profits from previous fixes for
> inquiries of substrings and essentially adds only the simplification
> of %re/%im applies to complex arra
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:11:05AM -0700, Jerry D wrote:
> The attached patch is simple and self explanatory in the git log entry.
>
> Regression tested on X86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
Yes, with one question.
> commit 845768cbead03f76265e491bcf5ea6de7020ff39
> Author: Jerry DeLisle
>
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:17:46PM +, Yuao Ma wrote:
>
> I've reverted the recent format changes, as three reviewers indicated they
> caused more harm than good.
>
Thank you.
> Are there any functional problems I need to address?
I did not see any additional functional issues. Patch is
OK
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 09:30:59AM +, Yuao Ma wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> > I looked at the patch in a bit more detail, and
> > I am not thrilled with large-scale whitespace
> > changes mingled with functional changes. It makes
> > the patch harder to read and review.
>
> I'm not sure which file y
On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 04:56:48AM +, Yuao Ma wrote:
>
> Thanks for your review! I've updated the patch.
>
> > this range_check() is unneeded.
>
> Done.
>
> > As a side note, the error message is slightly misleading
> > (although it will not be issued). Technically, x = -1 or 1
> > are all
Apologies for late a late reply. A quick skim of the code
suggests that you can eliminate some of the range_check()
calls in the simplifications. For example, you have
+gfc_expr *
+gfc_simplify_acospi (gfc_expr *x)
+{
+ gfc_expr *result;
+
+ if (x->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
+return NULL;
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the new logic misses the following bad code:
>
> print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), 42)
>
> This now ICEs here.
>
> I suggest to not 'return true' too early before all arguments
> have been checked.
>
Good catch, Harald. We
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 08:30:09PM -0700, Jerry D wrote:
> Attached patch fixes this by checking for BT_VOID and EXPR_FUNCTION.
>
> Thank you for guidance from Steve in the PR and Vincent for
> identifying the problem.
>
> Two test case files added to the testsuite.
>
> Regression tested on x86_
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Regression-tested. Again no test case because I don't know
> how. During testing, I also found that vtabs were dumped,
> this is also corrected.
>
> OK for trunk?
Thanks for working on this, but ...
>
> /* This section deals
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:08:58PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the attached patch addresses an actually very long-standing issue
> with bogus bounds checks for components of nested derived types in
> assignments when an intermediate level has the POINTER attribute
> instead of the ALLOCATABLE
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:49:08PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Thanks for the speedy review!
>
It was a bit easier than normal. After I submitted
the PR, I started to poke around in fortran/resolve.cc
to see if I could deal with the issue. I saw that you
grab the PR last night, and left yo
On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:52:06PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> the attached patch fixes an ICE regresseion where undo state was not
> handled properly when generating formal from actual arguments, which
> occurred under certain conditions with the newly introduced
> -Wexternal-argument-mismatc
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:04:08PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> this patch fixes an interesting regression that prevented substring
> bounds checks from being generated if the substring start was not a
> variable, but rather a constant or an expression.
>
> The fix I chose turned out to be a l
Andre,
Here's a bit of wordsmith. I removed the abbreviation "Esp."
I'm not sure if there is additional markup needed; especially,
with the "-fcoarray=single" I inserted.
Coarray support has been reworked to allow access to components
in derived types that have not been compiled with coarray
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 03:58:24PM +0100, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> attached patches fix a 12-regression, when a caf token is requested from an
> abstract class-typed dummy. The token was not looked up in the correct spot.
> Due the class typed object getting an artificial variable for direct d
On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the attached patch fixes a front-end memleak that is seen when
> running f951 under valgrind and while parsing invalid uses of
> NULLIFY.
>
> I had this in my tree for some time without any problems, in an
> attempt to further red
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 09:36:20AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> this patch is a variation of Jakub's patch in the PR, which
> avoids overflow on the mask used for exponentiation and
> fixes unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT. I tried testing this on
> a POWER machine, but --with-build-config=bootstrap-ubs
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:31:12PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>
Looks reasonable.
> While it is a really old bug but wrong code, I'd like to backport
> this also at least to 14-branch. Any reservations?
If it passes regression testing,
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 09:49:17PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Am 01.02.25 um 21:03 schrieb Steve Kargl:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:25:51PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > >
> > > the attached patch downgrades different constant character lengths in an
> >
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:25:51PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the attached patch downgrades different constant character lengths in an
> array constructor from a GNU to a legacy extension, so that users get a
> warning with -std=gnu. We continue to generate an error when standard
> conforman
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name
> out of a total of 54 for fortran and libgfortran. It's time that some of
> these bugs are swatted, I think :-)
>
PR 70949 appears to have been fi
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name
> out of a total of 54 for fortran and libgfortran. It's time that some of
> these bugs are swatted, I think :-)
>
This patch fixes PR71844. As th
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 09:41:13PM +, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> There is one question to the reviewer(s), or those knowing better
> than me how to handle IEEE infinity and NaN: with -Ofast, I needed
> to add "-fno-finite-math-only" to the new testcase
> gfortran.dg/ieee/out_of_range.f90, as the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:19:34PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> As of today, Gerhard Steinmetz has no fewer than 33 regressions to his name
> out of a total of 54 for fortran and libgfortran. It's time that some of
> these bugs are swatted, I think :-)
>
When I was much more active in a
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> As mentioned in the PR, there is a *.mod incompatibility between GCC 14 and
> GCC 15, at least when using iso_c_binding or iso_fortran_env intrinsic
> modules, because new entries have been added to those modules in the middle,
> c
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 03:28:31PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> the attached patch does what it says in the ChangeLog entry.
>
> Tested with "make dvi" and "make pdf".
>
> OK for trunk?
>
OK.
--
Steve
I'm ok withi your patch. It seems to also catch PR113928.
You may want to give others a chance to chime in.
--
steve
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:34:38PM +, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the check for potential aliasing of lhs and rhs currently shortcuts
> if the types differ. This is a problem
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:09:26AM -0800, Jerry D wrote:
> On 12/18/24 4:11 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > thanks for the draft patch.
> >
> > I haven't looked close enough, but you may have to add support
> > for 'asis' being an optional dummy variable. The following
> > example
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 01:11:14PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> I haven't looked close enough, but you may have to add support
> for 'asis' being an optional dummy variable. The following
> example crashes here with a segfault:
>
(program snipped for brevity)
>
> There are other intrinsics
All,
First, I would like to thank both mikael and fx for providing
help in my debugging of the in-lining in trans-intrinsic.cc.
It seems I have forgotten much of what I once knew about trees.
I have attached a patch that implements F2023 F_C_STRING() to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 04:53:42AM -0800, Damian Rouson wrote:
> including automatic GPU offloading. Then a few months ago, the death blow
> that I couldn’t work around was robust support for kind type parameters.
>
gfortran doesn't have robust kind type parameters?
% cat xx.f90
program foo
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:05:49PM +, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached patch fixes an ICE when passing an inquiry reference of a complex
> array to an assumed-rank dummy argument by terminating the search for the
> array reference before we hit the inquiry reference. (The arr
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 01:01:39PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 30/10/2024 à 23:00, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
> >
> > given that Jakub changed lots of whitespace in r15-4624-g50332a4fdd3243,
> > you may want to rebase your patches onto HEAD of trunk.
> >
> > May I also suggest to attach the patc
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 02:55:11PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Steve found a test case where unsigned constants were not handled
> in a module. Single-line patch committed as obvious and simple,
> r15-5341-g66096151afc6631f8f2a3458b154c5daa822b963 .
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
Than
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 10:00:29AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> during testing, I noticed that parameters of the form
> - mod(u1,u2) were rejected with an unknown type. The fix
> is straightforward, but required an adjustment to another
> test case.
>
> Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
>
Ye
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 04:41:40PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> This wrinkle to PR115700 came about because the associate-name string
> length was not being initialized, when an array selector had a substring
> reference with non-constant start or end. This, of course, caused
> subsequent re
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 05:16:54PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> OK for trunk?
>
OK, but see below.
> +@item @code{SUM}, @pxref{SUM}
> +@item @code{TRANSPOSE}, @pxref{TRANSPOSE}
> +@item @code{TRANSFER}, @pxref{TRANSFER}
> @end itemize
> +
> +The following intrincis are enabled with @option{
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 08:32:00PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> here's another small patch for FINDLOC for unsigned.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
OK. Other than UNSIGNED being a new experimental feature,
this patch almost qualifies as "Obvious".
--
Steve
OK. Thanks for the patch.
--
steve
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 09:33:20AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> this patch, consisting almost entirely of the test cases, implements
> CSHIFT and EOSHIFT for unsigneds.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> Implement CSHIFT and EOSHIFT for unsigned.
>
> gcc/for
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 08:12:01PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> the testcase is in the coarray directory, where tests are executed mit
> -fcoarray=single and lib. I don't know about none. Because the code stops
> compiling when it encounters a coarray with no single or lib. Therefore I
> su
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> attached patch fixes a runtime issue when a coarray was passed as
> parameter to a procedure that was itself a parameter. The issue here
> was that the coarray was passed as array pointer (i.e. w/o descriptor)
> to the function
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 11:02:42AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> While I understand the intent of 'positive form' vs 'negative form', the
> above might be clearer as
>
>Usage of intrinsics can be implemented either by generating a call
>to the libgf
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> >
> > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * invoke.texi(finline-intrinsics): Document new flag.
> > * lang.opt (finline-intrinsics, finline-intrinsics=,
> > fno-inline-intrinsics): New flags.
> > * options.cc (gfc_post_opt
OK. Sorry about dropping the balli on a review.
I thought it had already been approved and committed.
--
steve
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 12:19:48PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Ping:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-July/060640.html
>
> Maybe I could argue that I can self approve,
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 12:10:18PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> this version of the patch includes DOT_PRODUCT, MATMUL and quite
> a few improvements for simplification.
>
All,
I have gone through Thomas's current patch and sent a
few emails with comments to him. To keep thin
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:07:20AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Ping (a little bit)?
>
> With another weekend coming up, I would have some time to
> work on incorporating any feedback, or on putting in
> more intrinsics.
>
Last comment as I've made it to the end of the patch.
Your testcases ar
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:07:20AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Ping (a little bit)?
>
> With another weekend coming up, I would have some time to
> work on incorporating any feedback, or on putting in
> more intrinsics.
>
In the documentation, you have
+Generally, unsigned integers are only p
ault) to a legacy extension (warning by default).
>
> The feature is tested in at least 4 gfortran testcases. I adjusted
> the pattern of one of these tests to check for the downgrade.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 06:46:47PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Am 30.08.24 um 18:33 schrieb Steve Kargl:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Should we downgrade this extension to GFC_STD_LEGACY?
> >
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Am 29.08.24 um 21:53 schrieb Steve Kargl:
> > Thanks for the patch. If you have not already opened a new PR for the
> > other issue with C8107, I'll open one later today. It's likely that
> > w
Thanks for the patch. If you have not already opened a new PR for the
other issue with C8107, I'll open one later today. It's likely that
we need to check the namelist-group-name for USE association in
match.cc:gfc_match_namelist.
Hmmm, it seems we already catch the error, but accept it as an
ex
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 06:46:08PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Steve,
>
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 12:10:18PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > this version of the patch includes DOT_PRODUCT, MATMUL and quite
> > > a few improvements for simplification.
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > Your upd
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 12:17:46PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> attached small patch removes a VIEW_CONVERT that I erroneously inserted during
> patching pr110033. PR86468 fixes the (co-)rank computation and therefore this
> VIEW_CONVERT is IMO obsolete. I think it may cause hard to find ru
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 12:10:18PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> this version of the patch includes DOT_PRODUCT, MATMUL and quite
> a few improvements for simplification.
Thomas,
Your updated patch applied cleanly on top-of-tree gcc.
Bootstrap and regression testing on amd64-*-freebsd
comple
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 11:09:10AM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> These patches are about inlining, there is no manipulation of the parse
> tree. So I would rather use a separate option (-finline-intrinsics?).
I've only followed the discussion from afar, but gcc already supports
a -finline and -
Thanks for the patch and chasing down the magic.
Path is ok to commit.
--
steve
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 05:32:26PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Ping!
>
> I understand now why this works. The scope of the block is merged and so
> all the previous declarations that would othe
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:00:53PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> the attached patch fixes an ICE occuring for ALLOCATE with SOURCE
> (or MOLD) of deferred character length in the scalar case, which
> looked obscure because the ICE disappears at -O1 and higher.
>
> The dump tree suggests that it
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 09:13:23AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> The original subsite has disappeared and we couldn't find it elsewhere.
>
https://github.com/gklimowicz/FCVS
gklimowicz is a flang developer and member of J3.
--
Steve
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:37:32PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> >
> > That said, Fortran has the concept of model numbers, which
> > are set in arith.c. Does this change give the expected
> > value for ibm128? For example, with "REAL(16) X", one
> > has "DIGITS(X) = 113", which is the precision
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 01:27:53PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> Previously effective target fortran_real_c_float128 never
> passes on Power regardless of the default 128 long double
> is ibmlongdouble or ieeelongdouble. It's due to that TF
> mode is always used for kind 16 real, which has precisio
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 04:30:42PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hell(o),
>
> it didn't take long for my recent patch for PR111781 to show a regression.
> The fix proposed here is actually the one Harald posted in the PR.
> I can't imagine a case where it wouldn't do the right thing.
> Regression t
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 04:17:32PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
>
> These two (independent) patches add two tiny Fortran 2023 features: new
> ISO_FORTRAN_ENV named constants and SELECTED_LOGICAL_KIND intrinsic.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> Please review, and let me know i
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:06:10PM -0800, Jerry D wrote:
> On 3/5/24 1:51 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > on further thought, do we sanitize 'child_iomsg'?
> > We pass it to snprintf as format.
> >
> > Wouldn't a strncpy be sufficient?
> >
> > Harald
> >
> >
>
> Just to be safe
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:36:43AM -0800, Jerry D wrote:
> On 2/29/24 1:47 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>
> > And, just for my own education, the length limitation of iomsg to 255
> > chars is not backed by the standard AFAICS, right? It's just our
> > STRERR_MAXSZ?
>
> Yes, its what we ha
All,
Consider,
! { dg-do run }
program foo
implicit none
real y
associate (x => log(cmplx(-1,0)))
y = x%im
if (int(100*y)-314 /= 0) stop 1
end associate
end program
% gfcx -c a.f90
a.f90:6:13:
6 | y = x%im
| 1
Error: Symbol 'x' at (1) has no I
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:15:17PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Steve, all,
>
> here's an updated patch with an enhanced testcase that also
> checks MOLD= besides SOURCE=.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Is it OK for mainline?
>
>From my viewpoint, yes.
Thanks for finding a better s
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Steve!
>
> On 2/22/24 01:52, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:42:32PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:20:43PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:42:32PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:20:43PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > On 2/21/24 22:00, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > memleak vs ICE. I think I'll take one over the other.
> > > Probably need to free code->
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:20:43PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> On 2/21/24 22:00, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Unfortunately, valgrind does not work on AMD FX-8350 cpu.
>
> Do you mean valgrind does not work at all?
> For gcc, you need to configure --enable-valgrind-annotations
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:28:16PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> On 2/21/24 20:41, Jerry D wrote:
> > On 2/21/24 10:30 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > I have attached a patch to PR114024, see
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/2024-February/854651.
I have attached a patch to PR114024, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/2024-February/854651.html
The patch contains a new testcase and passes regression
testing on x86_64-*-freebsd. Could someone castr an eye
over the patch and commit it?
--
Steve
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 08:53:37PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> On 2/19/24 16:19, Peter Hill wrote:
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > Thanks for your help, please see the updated and signed-off patch below.
>
> Pushed: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14ba8d5b87acd5f91ab8b8c02165a0fd53dcc2f2
>
Harald, Thanks for ta
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached patch fixes a mis-handling of optional dummy arguments
> passed to optional dummy arguments of procedures with the bind(c)
> attribute. When those procedures are expecting CFI descriptors,
> there is no sp
Jerry,
The patch looks good to me, but please give Harald a chance
to comment.
--
steve
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 07:17:55PM -0800, Jerry D wrote:
> On 1/30/24 12:36 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > Am 30.01.24 um 19:15 schrieb Jerry D:
> > > The attached patch attempts to fix the
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 08:56:24PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Am 28.01.24 um 12:39 schrieb Mikael Morin:
> > Le 24/01/2024 à 22:39, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > this patch is actually only a followup fix to generate the proper name
> > > of an array reference in derive
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:13:05AM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> > > Now, if
> > > the OS adds cospi() to libm and it's in libm's symbol map, then the
> > > cospi() used by gfortran depends on the search order of the loaded
> > > libraries.
>
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 01:37:54PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>
> > - If I get this right, to take one example, the Fortran front-end will emit
> > a call to gfortran_acospi_r4(), libgfortran provides this as a wrapper
> > calling acospif(), which is called either from libm or from libgfortra
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 01:37:54PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:09 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve,
>
> Hello, long time no see.
Time is short and we're all busy with life, but it is nice to see
familiar names!
>
> > Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to d
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:40:27AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:08:43AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to do a proper review, but
> > after a first read I had the following questions:
> &
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:08:43AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to do a proper review, but
> after a first read I had the following questions:
>
> - "an OS's libm may/will contain cospi(), etc.”: do those functions
> conform to any standard? Are th
All,
I have attached a new patch to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
which addresses the following issues.
PR113152 -- implement half-cycle trigonometric functions
PR113412 -- better error message for atan(y,x)
PR113413 -- implement atand(y,x)
The patch clocks in at 3488 l
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 06:47:36PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> I tested this on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu without regression.
> There is no new test, as the problem is visible on an
> existing test with valgrind or an asan-instrumented compiler.
> OK for master?
>
Yes. After your explanation, the
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 10:12:42PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> (2) a missing optional argument for SIZE to the ISHFTC intrinsic
> shall be equivalent to using BIT_SIZE(I).
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>
> As I consider the patch safe, I'd like to backport to 13
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:31:15PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> we might want to update changes.html to reflect this. How about:
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-14/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-14/changes.html
> index 403feb06..9b16f5e3 100644
> --- a/htdocs/gcc-14/changes.html
> +++ b/htdocs/gcc-14/
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 07:11:59PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> starting with Fortran 2018, DATE_AND_TIME allowed a non-default
> integer VALUES argument.
>
> While gfortran accepts this silently, this failed at runtime
> because the library implementation beyond kind=4 and kind=8
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:36:00AM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> OK with this fixed (and the previous comments as you wish), if Steve has no
> more comments.
>
No further comments. Thanks for your patients, Harald.
As side note, I found John Reid's "What's new" document
where it is noted that
Harald,
Sorry about delayed response. Got side-tracked by Family this weekend.
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 09:46:46PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> On 11/19/23 01:04, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:12:55PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > > Regtested o
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:12:55PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Fortran 2023 added restrictions on integer arguments to SYSTEM_CLOCK.
> The attached patch implements these.
>
> I was struggling with the way we should handle features that are sort-of
> deleted in a new standard, but not describ
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:56:20PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> this is a rather weird bug with a very simple fix. If a procedure pointer
> is referenced in a CALL, a symbol was created shadowing the original
> declaration if it was host-associated. Funnily, this affected only
> r
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:11:08PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> I found this 'obvious' fix, while going through PRs assigned to me.
>
> Regtests. OK for mainline?
>
Yes. Fell free to backport if you have time and desire.
--
Steve
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:31:20PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Am 16.10.23 um 19:11 schrieb Tobias Burnus:
> > Yesterday, someone was confused because the signal handler did not work.
> >
> > It turned out that the created Fortran procedure used as handler used
> > pass by reference - and 'si
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:16:08PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
>
> here's a simple patch for a very old PR that suggests a more helpful
> error message for an automatic object in a COMMON. The patch also
> suppresses the less helpful old error message after the new one has
> been emit
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 09:39:53PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> when passing a character actual argument to an assumed-type dummy
> (TYPE(*)), we should not pass the character length for that argument,
> as otherwise other hidden arguments that are passed as part of the
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 09:33:22PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> I am going to get the brown bag for today... This is now the right
> corrected patch.
>
> Sorry for all the noise!
>
Third times a charm (as the saying goes).
Looks good to me. Thanks for the patch.
--
Steve
On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> some intrinsics may return character results with the same
> characteristics as their first argument (e.g. PACK, MINVAL, ...).
> If the first argument is of deferred-length, we need to derive
> the character
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 09:39:31PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> for intrinsic procedures we derive the typespec of the formal symbol
> attributes from the actual arguments. This can have an undesired
> effect for character actual arguments, as the argument passing
> con
Fortran: Fix default type bugs in gfortran [PR99139, PR99368]
>
> 2023-07-08 Steve Kargl
ka...@gcc.gnu.org.
> gcc/fortran
> PR fortran/99139
> PR fortran/99368
> * match.cc (gfc_match_namelist): Check for host associated or
> defined types before applying default type.
> (
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 11:26:26AM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 04/07/2023 à 01:56, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 10:49:36PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed, this is a nice demonstration.
> > >
> > &g
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 10:49:36PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
>
> Indeed, this is a nice demonstration.
>
> While playing, I was wondering whether the following code is conforming:
>
> program p
> call s ((1))
> contains
> subroutine s (x)
> integer :: x
> x = 42
> end
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:38:42PM -0500, Alexander Westbrooks via Fortran
wrote:
> I have finished my testing, and updated my patch and relevant Changelogs. I
> added 4 new tests and all the existing tests in the current testsuite
> for gfortran passed or failed as expected. Do I need to attach t
1 - 100 of 1042 matches
Mail list logo
