Hi Paul,
I want to get something approaching correct finalization to the
distros, which implies 12-branch at present. Hopefully I can do the
same with associate in a month or two's time.
OK by me then.
(I just wanted to be sure that we had this discussion :-)
Best regards
Thomas
Hi Paul, all,
On 6/3/23 15:16, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I want to get something approaching correct finalization to the
distros, which implies 12-branch at present. Hopefully I can do the
same with associate in a month or two's time.
IMHO it is not only distros, b
Hi Thomas,
I want to get something approaching correct finalization to the
distros, which implies 12-branch at present. Hopefully I can do the
same with associate in a month or two's time.
I am dithering about changing the F2003/08 part of finalization since
the default is 2018 compliance. That s
On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 07:50:19AM +0200, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > I propose to backport
> > r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee to 12-branch very
> > soon.
>
> Is this something that we usually do?
>
> While finalization was basically broken before, some
Hi Paul,
I propose to backport
r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee to 12-branch very
soon.
Is this something that we usually do?
While finalization was basically broken before, some people still used
working subsets (or subsets that were broken, and they adapted or
wrote their
Hi All,
I propose to backport
r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee to 12-branch very
soon. Before that, I propose to remove the F2003/2008 finalization of
structure and array constructors in 13- and 14-branches. I can see why
it was removed from the standard in a correction to F2008
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 03:58:32PM +0100, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote:
> Paul,
>
> first of all, thank you very much indeed for the hard work you put into
> this! This is a great step for gfortran.
Ditto**2
> > I can hurry this along to get the patch
> > into 13-branch or I can wait until 1
Paul,
first of all, thank you very much indeed for the hard work you put into
this! This is a great step for gfortran.
I can hurry this along to get the patch
into 13-branch or I can wait until 14-branch opens.
Personally, I think that this fixes so many bugs, and makes
the compiler so much
For what it is worth.
On 2/10/22 11:49 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Hi Paul,
Am 10.02.22 um 13:25 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Conclusions on ifort:
(i) The agreement between gfortran, with the patch applied, and ifort is
strongest of all the other brands;
(ii) The disagree
Hi Paul,
Am 10.02.22 um 13:25 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Conclusions on ifort:
(i) The agreement between gfortran, with the patch applied, and ifort is
strongest of all the other brands;
(ii) The disagreements are all down to the treatment of the parent
component of arrays of exten
Hi Harald,
I have run your modified version of finalize_38.f90, and now I see
> that you can get a bloody head just from scratching too much...
>
> crayftn 12.0.2:
>
> 1, 3, 1
>
It appears that Cray interpret a derived type constructor as being a
function call and so "6 If a specification ex
Remember the days when reading very old cryptic Fortran code? Remember
the fixed line lengths and cryptic variable names!
I fear the Standards committee has achieved history with the Standard
itself it is so difficult to understand sometimes.
Cheers to Paul and Harald for digging on this.
Je
Hi Paul,
Am 08.02.22 um 12:22 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Hi Harald,
Thanks for giving the patch a whirl.
the parent components as an array. I strongly suspect that, from reading
7.5.6.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 closely, that ifort has it right. However,
this
is another issue to co
Hi Harald,
Thanks for giving the patch a whirl.
> the parent components as an array. I strongly suspect that, from reading
> > 7.5.6.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 closely, that ifort has it right. However,
> this
> > is another issue to come back to in the future.
>
> Could you specify which version of I
Hi Paul,
thanks for attacking this.
I haven't looked at the actual patch, only tried to check the new
testcases with other compilers.
Am 03.02.22 um 18:14 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
I have tried to interpret F2018 7.5.6.2 and 7.5.6.3 as well as possible.
This is not always straig
This patch has been an excessively long time in coming. Please accept my
apologies for that.
All but two of the PR37336 dependencies are fixed, The two exceptions are
PRs 59694 and 65347. The former involves lack of finalization of an
unreferenced entity declared in a block, which I am sure is tri
16 matches
Mail list logo
