Re: [patch, fortran] Asynchronous I/O, take 3

I have done a full regression testing with the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-07/msg4.html + Rainer’s patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-07/msg7.html I am currently testing the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-07/msg8.html so far, so good! IMO the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 85599: warn about short-circuiting of logical expressions for non-pure functions

Hi Janus, > after the dust of the heated discussion around this PR has settled a > bit, here is another attempt to implement at least some basic warnings > about compiler-dependent behavior concerning the short-circuiting of > logical expressions. … IMO your patch is missing the only point I agre

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 85599: warn about short-circuiting of logical expressions for non-pure functions

sort(x)<10.0*log(x)) … >> >> which is not portable to compilers computing the two expressions? > > That's one of the typical cases that the patch should be able to > handle. If 'sort' is impure, this should trigger a warning with the > patch. If it is pure, it

Re: [patch, fortran] Asynchronous I/O, take 3

> Le 15 juil. 2018 à 21:35, Rainer Orth a écrit > : > > Hi Jerry, > >> On 07/15/2018 11:46 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Jerry, >>> Hmm, interesting. Which linux are you using? >>> >>> Fedora 27. >> >> Works for me. Fedora 28. Do not know for other OS's > > just tried Solaris 11/x86

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 57160: short-circuit IF only with -ffrontend-optimize

Hi Janus, > gfortran currently does short-circuiting, and after my patch for PR > 85599 warns about cases where this might remove an impure function > call (which potentially can change results). > > Now, this PR (57160) is about code which relies on the > short-circuiting behavior. Since short-ci

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR80477 - [OOP] Polymorphic function result generates memory leak

Hi! > great that you managed to solve this one! The patch looks very good to > me, but I'm afraid two details may be missing: > > 1) If the type has allocatable components, those need to be freed first. > … PR86481? Cheers Dominique

Re: [patch] libstdc++/69386 Ensure C++ language linkage in cmath and cstdlib

Jonathan, > PR libstdc++/69386 > * include/c_global/ccomplex: Ensure C++ language linkage. > * include/c_global/cmath: Likewise. > * include/c_global/cstdlib: Likewise. > * include/c_global/ctgmath: Likewise. > * testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++2011/linkage.cc: New. The test

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

2016 à 20:20, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : > > On 19/01/16 20:10 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: >> On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 10:57 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >>> > Addressed these, fixed a problem with using GLIBCXX_WEAK_DEFINITION >>> > (which is only set on D

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

> Le 21 janv. 2016 à 16:25, Torvald Riegel a écrit : > > On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> Torvald, >> >> Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for >> libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C >>

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

> Le 21 janv. 2016 à 18:15, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : > > >> Le 21 janv. 2016 à 16:25, Torvald Riegel a écrit : >> >> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >>> Torvald, >>> >>> Now that I

[PATCH] PR 68283 [5/6 Regression] ice: gfc_variable_attr(): Bad array reference

Dear all, Is the following patch OK for trunk and the gcc5 branch? see the thread starting at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-11/msg00057.html and https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-11/msg00072.html. Dominique Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog ==

[Committed] New test for PR 66707 - Endless compilation on wrong usage of common

AFAICT PR 66707 has been fixed/ prevented/hidden by revision r226732. I have committed the following as obvious Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog === --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 233007) +++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (wor

Re: [Committed] New test for PR 66707 - Endless compilation on wrong usage of common

Done as r233009 Thanks for the review, Dominique > Le 30 janv. 2016 à 16:45, Paul Richard Thomas > a écrit : > > Hi Dominique, > > Thanks for doing this. Yes, it's OK for 5-branch as well. > > Cheers > > Paul

Re: [Patch, fortran, pr67451, v1] [5/6 Regression] ICE with sourced allocation from coarray

> Hi all, > > unfortunately was my last patch for pr67451 not perfect and introduced > regressions occurring on s390(x) and with the sanitizer. These were > caused, because when taking the array specs from the source=-expression > also its attributes, like coarray state and so on where taken from

Re: [PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

The patch fixes the PR on x86_64-apple-darwin15. > OK for stage1 trunk? What it the reason to delay the fix for a couple of months? Thanks for working on the issue. Dominique

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

Hi Jerry, > Thanks for review. Committed to trunk r233436. The test gfortran.dg/read_bang4.f90 fails on x86_64-apple-darwin15: a.out(15552,0x7fff7b2e3000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fb472804c00: pointer being freed was not allocated *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug Prog

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

With the following reduced test program test implicit none integer :: i, j, k, ios integer, parameter :: big = 600 character(kind=4,len=big) :: str1, str2 do i=1,big, 10 do j = 0, 9 k = i + j str2(k:k) = char(65+j) end do end do open(15, status='scratch', encodin

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR69423 - [6 Regression] Invalid optimization with deferred-length character

With the patch I get an ICE when compiling gfortran.dg/allocate_error_5.f90 (lldb) target create "/opt/gcc/gcc6p-233563p2/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15.3.0/6.0.0/f951" Current executable set to '/opt/gcc/gcc6p-233563p2/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15.3.0/6.0.0/f951' (x86_64). (lldb) run /

Re: New tests for PRs 52531 and 57365

Committed on trunk as revision r233588. Dominique > Le 15 févr. 2016 à 14:53, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : > > PRs 52531 and 57365 are fixed on trunk and gcc5 branch. Unless someone > objects I am planing to add the following tests in the coming days. > > Tested o

Re: [patch, libgfortran] PR69456 Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

Hi Jerry, The patch works as advertised without regression. Just one nit, I am puzzled by the comment in the line of gfortran.dg/namelist_89.f90 +write(99,*) " c1=(1-,1+1)" ! Treated as 1e-1?! Should not it be +write(99,*) " c1=(1-,1+1)" ! Should give error on item number 5 or something els

Re: [Fortran,4.9/5/6 Regression]ICE for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory

Hi Jerry, > Let me no if any objections. The test gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 should be updated: before the patch f951: Warning: 'gfortran.log' is not a directory after f951: Fatal Error: 'gfortran.log' is not a directory Thanks, Dominique

Re: [PATCH] 69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align, with small alignment

The test gcc.dg/builtins-68.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin15: FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-68.c (test for errors, line 79) FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-68.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-68.c:107:40: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned

[patch] Cleaning after the gfortran test suite

This patch extend the cleaning proposed in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-10/msg00083.html to opened files. The patch is mostly obvious except for gfortran.dg/open_negative_unit_1.f90 for which I assumed that the second OPEN closes the file foo.txt without deleting it (and that it is the inten

Re: Tests for libgomp based on OpenMP Examples 4.0.2

> The patch replaces all FP comparisons with inequalities and epsilons > in those tests for libgomp. In libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/examples-4/simd-8.f90 integer, parameter :: EPS = 0.005 should be real, parameter :: EPS = 0.005 TIA Dominique

Re: *Ping* Re: [Patch, fortran] PR61831 side-effect deallocation of variable components

See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2015-07/msg01789.html Dominique

Re: [libquadmath, patch] Add logbq() to libquadmath

> The attached patch adds logbq() to libquadmath, with code lifted from glibc. AFAICT there is something missing in the patch: I do not see any compilation of math/logbq.c and indeed no trace of logbq in libquadmath. What I am missing? TIA Dominique

Re: [libquadmath, patch] Add logbq() to libquadmath

> Le 5 août 2015 à 15:11, FX a écrit : > >> AFAICT there is something missing in the patch: I do not see any compilation >> of math/logbq.c and indeed no trace of logbq in libquadmath. What I am >> missing? > > Maybe you didn’t regenerate the Makefile.in? Indeed I did not!-(I have never succ

Re: [PATCH] fortran/67802 -- Numeric constant character length must ...

Without initialization the errors are of the kind: Error: Expression at (1) must be of INTEGER type, found * see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2015-10/msg00081.html. Should not we get the same message with initialization? Cheers, Dominique

Re: [PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Update extract_even_odd w/ AVX-512BW insns.

Kirill, The new tests fail on x86_64-apple-darwin14: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vect-pack-trunc-1.c (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/vect-pack-trunc-1.c compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vect-pack-trunc-2.c (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gcc.targ

Re: Possible patch for fortran/65766

AFAICT this patch has been approved by FX at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-07/msg00168.html. Any reason to not commit it? Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] COMMON block error recovery: PR 67758 (second pass)

Mikael, AFAICT the patch fixes the ICE/hang without regression. Thanks, Dominique

Re: [Patch, Fortran, 66927, v2] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

This patch also fixes pr57117 comment 2, the original test and the test in comment 3 now give an ICE pr57117.f90:82:0: allocate(z(9), source=reshape(x, (/ 9 /))) 1 internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11 and pr67044. Thanks, Dominique

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR67783, quadraticness in IPA inline analysis

> It seems there was regression on fatigue/fatigue2 > http://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/pb11/ Fatigue > was one of reasons to intorduce the heuristics, so it may be related to the > patch :( The test in pr 64099 comment 14 now requires -fwhole-program to inline the subroutine perdida: [Book15]

Re: Fix more of C/fortran canonical type issues

Honza, > this is a variant of patch I commited (adding the suggested predicate) This caused https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67923 Probably related pr66238 and pr66762. TIA Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran, 5] Bakport Andre's r222477 deep copy fix for PR67818

> Le 15 oct. 2015 à 16:59, FX a écrit : > >> In other words, >> consider youself a reviewer for patches in an area >> of the compiler that you are comfortable. > > Seconded. > > FX Agreed, Dominique

Re; [Patch, fortran] PR67171 - [6 regression] sourced allocation

Dear Paul, AFAICT no patch! Dominique

Re: Re; [Patch, fortran] PR67171 - [6 regression] sourced allocation

> Le 24 oct. 2015 à 15:46, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : > > Dear Paul, > > AFAICT no patch! > > Dominique > If I am not mistaken, your patch fixes pr67528 also. Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/67805 -- Check for invalid charlength

At revision r229288 compiling the following test implicit none type :: template_t integer :: type character(256) :: charset1, charset2 integer :: len1, len2 end type template_t contains subroutine match_quoted (tt, s, n, range) type(template_t), intent(in) :: tt c

Re: Re; [Patch, fortran] PR67171 - [6 regression] sourced allocation

> Le 24 oct. 2015 à 21:08, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : > > >> Le 24 oct. 2015 à 15:46, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : >> >> Dear Paul, >> >> AFAICT no patch! >> >> Dominique >> > > If I am not mistaken, your pa

Re: Re; [Patch, fortran] PR67171 - [6 regression] sourced allocation

> It also fixes the ICEs in pr61829 and pr61830. I meant pr61829 and not pr61829. Dominique

Re: Re; [Patch, fortran] PR67171 - [6 regression] sourced allocation

> Le 25 oct. 2015 à 14:13, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : > >> It also fixes the ICEs in pr61829 and pr61830. > > I meant pr61829 and not pr61829. Please read pr61819 and pr61830. Sorry for the noise. Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/36192 -- Check for valid BT_INTEGER

With the patch compiling the original test still gives … pr36192.f90:39:10: x_n, v_n, & ! Configuration at t+dt with step dt 1 Error: The module or main program array 'x_n' at (1) must have constant shape f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11 Domini

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/36192 -- Check for valid BT_INTEGER

1 Error: The module or main program array 'x' at (1) must have constant shape /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90:7:2: x(1,:) = (/ 1.0, 0.0 /) 1 Error: Different shape for array assignment at (1) on dimension 1 (0 and 2) Dominique > Le 26 oct. 2015 à 11:

Re: [Patch, committed] PR67933

Dear Paul, > I have added a testcase, which has been committed as revision 229452. If I compile the test with -fsanitize=address,undefined I get at run time ==72440==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: global-buffer-overflow on address 0x00010adfee20 at pc 0x00010adf913d bp 0x7fff54e0a270 sp 0x7fff54e0a26

Re: [Patch, committed] PR67933

> > The recent patches on trunk to gfc_trans_allocate have fixed PR67933. > > I have added a testcase, which has been committed as revision 229452. > > This test case fails at runtime on powerpc64le-linux-gnu. … This should be fixed after revision r229503. Dominique

Re: more accurate omp in fortran

> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c Revision r229609 breaks bootstrap: ../../work/gcc/fortran/openmp.c: In function 'void resolve_omp_clauses(gfc_code*, gfc_omp_clauses*, gfc_namespace*, bool)': ../../work/gcc/fortran/openmp.c:2925:27: error: format '%L' expects argument o

Re: [PATCH] New attribute to create target clones

Evgeny, On darwin I see the following failures FAIL: g++.dg/ext/mvc1.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/ext/mvc1.C -std=c++11 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: g++.dg/ext/mvc1.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/ext/mvc1.C -std=c++14 comp

Re: [PATCH] New attribute to create target clones

Evgeny, I have already checked that the addition of +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ fixes the failures. I’ll test your full patch later today (currently chasing regression with gfortran). Thanks, Dominique > Le 2 nov. 2015 à 15:50, Evgeny Stupachenko a écrit : > > Yes, that is exactly what

Re: [PATCH] Pr fortran/68153 -- Enhance checking of RESHAPE shape arg

Steve, The error for the test program p integer, parameter :: sh(2) = [2, 2] integer, parameter :: a(2,2) = reshape([1, 2, 3, 4], -sh) print *, a end is pr68153_2.f90:2:34: integer, parameter :: sh(2) = [2, 2] 1 Error: 'shape' argument of 'reshape

[PATCH,committed] PR fortran/67982 -- add testcase

I've committed a testcase for PR fortran/67982 to trunk. Dominique Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/warn_unused_function_3.f90 === --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/warn_unused_function_3.f90(nonexistent) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran

[PATCH] PR54224 Warn for unused internal procedures -- update testcase

Is there any objection to commit the following (see comments 21 and 22)? Dominique Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog === --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 229793) +++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2

[PATCH] PR47266

I’ld like to close PR47266 as FIXED after the commit on trunk and 5.2.1 of the following test extracted from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-01/msg00094.html. The test succeeds on trunk and 5.2.1 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-11/msg00965.html in which it was included). O

[PATCH, committed] PR67826 gcc/fortran/openmp.c:1808: bad test ?

I have committed on trunk the following patch as revision r230148 (preapproved by Jakub Jelinek and tested on x86_64-apple-darwin14) Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog === --- gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (revision 230147) +++ gcc/fortran/C

[PATCH] PR68271 [6 Regression] Boostrap fails on x86_64-apple-darwin14 at r230084

The following patch restore bootstrap on darwin --- ../_clean/gcc/cp/parser.h 2015-11-10 01:54:44.0 +0100 +++ gcc/cp/parser.h 2015-11-11 12:10:28.0 +0100 @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ struct GTY (()) cp_token { /* Token flags. */ unsigned char flags; /* Identifier for the pragm

Re: [PATCH] PR68271 [6 Regression] Boostrap fails on x86_64-apple-darwin14 at r230084

ister_deferred_pragma (parse_in, space, name, id, Dominique > Le 11 nov. 2015 à 14:14, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:11:38PM +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> The following patch restore bootstrap on darwin >> >> --- ../_clean/gcc/c

Re: [v3 PATCH] LWG 2510, make the default constructors of library tag types explicit.

Revision r230175 > 2015-11-10 Ville Voutilainen > > LWG 2510, make the default constructors of library tag types > explicit. > * include/bits/mutex.h (defer_lock_t, try_lock_t, > adopt_lock_t): Add an explicit default constructor. > * include/bits/stl_pair.h (piecewise_const

Re: [OpenACC] declare directive

> > "Would be really nice" means that you're asking us to work on and resolve > > PR68271 before installing this patch? > > Dominique has committed a quick hack for this, so it is not urgent, but > would be nice to get it resolved. If somebody from Mentor gets to that, > perfect, otherwise I (or s

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/68283 -- remove a rogue gfc_internal_error()

Hi Steve, Although I have not strong objection to your proposed patch, I’ld prefer the following one --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/primary.c 2015-10-18 13:07:28.0 +0200 +++ gcc/fortran/primary.c 2015-11-13 23:32:08.0 +0100 @@ -2194,7 +2194,7 @@ check_substring: symbol_attr

Re: Ping: [Patch, fortran] Bug 68241 - [meta-bug] Deferred-length character - PRs50221, 68216, 63932, 66408, 67674 and 49954

Dear Paul, Update with your latest patch. Using the following patch --- /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/deferred_character_4.f90 2015-11-14 19:28:59.0 +0100 +++ deferred_character_4_db.f90 2015-11-14 19:43:55.0 +0100 @@ -21,6 +21,16 @@ program chk_alloc_string s

[PATCH] PR 65751 Bogus &L in error message

Is the following patch OK for trunk and 5.3? I have used the legalese found in my draft for Fortran 2015. Would it be acceptable to replace "with the BIND attribute or the SEQUENCE attribute" with "with the BIND or SEQUENCE attribute"? Dominique Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog ==

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/59910 -- structure constructor in DATA statement

> … but I suspect gfc_reduce_init_expr() > may be useful for PARAMETER statements as well (need to > check this!). As in the following test module m implicit none type t integer :: i end type t type(t), dimension(2), parameter :: a1 = (/ t(1), t(2) /) type(t), dimens

Re: [PATCH] (Partial) Implementation of simplificaiton of CSHIFT

‘dm’ is actually not used, the building problem is fixed by the patch (I did not rearrange the nested ‘if’s) --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/simplify.c2015-11-21 20:59:57.0 +0100 +++ gcc/fortran/simplify.c 2015-11-21 21:06:30.0 +0100 @@ -1792,7 +1792,6 @@ gfc_expr * gfc_simpli

Re: [PATCH] (Partial) Implementation of simplificaiton of CSHIFT

Hi Steve, Compiling the attached code after revision r230710 gives the ICE f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1823 while it compiled before. TIA Dominique mhd.f90 Description: Binary data

[Back port r227760] PR67460 [5 Regression] Spurious: f951: all warnings being treated as errors

Is it OK to back port revision r227760 to 5.3? Tested on x86_64-apple-darwin14 Dominique Index: gcc/ChangeLog === --- gcc/ChangeLog (revision 230703) +++ gcc/ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,17 @@ +2015-11-22 Dominiqu

Re: [PATCH] (Partial) Implementation of simplificaiton of CSHIFT

> Le 22 nov. 2015 à 17:21, Steve Kargl a > écrit : > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:51:09AM +0100, Dominique d'Humi??res wrote: >> >> Compiling the attached code after revision r230710 gives the ICE >> >> f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_simplify_cshift, at >> fortran/simplify.c:1823 >>

Re: [patch, libfortran] Speed up cshift for dim > 1

Hi Thomas, Your patch works as advertised! For the record, the following CSHIFT is still 4 times slower than the DO loop td(:,:) = cshift(array=t(:,:), shift=vect(:), dim=1) Thanks for working on this issue. Dominique

Re: [PATCH, GCC/LTO, ping] Fix PR69866: LTO with def for weak alias in regular object file

The new test fails on darwin with the usual FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr69866 c_lto_pr69866_0.o-c_lto_pr69866_1.o link, -O0 -flto -flto-partition=none IMO it requires a /* { dg-require-alias "" } */ directive. TIA Dominique

Re: [patch, libfortran, RFC] Speed up cshift with array shift

Hi Thomas, On my machine I get the following timings without the patch cpu time cshift dim=1 0.490763009 cpu time do loop dim=15.57969809E-02 cpu time cshift dim=2 0.416319966 cpu time do loop dim=2 0.187106013 cpu time cshift dim=31.37362707 cpu time do loop d

[Patch testsuite]

Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-17 17:55:51.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-25 18:01:52.0 +0200 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* { dg-options "-O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA" } */ /* { dg-skip-if "Unmatch

Re: [Patch testsuite]

> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump a écrit : > > On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? > > Ok. As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain > the

[PATCH fortran] Bug 79843 - diagnostics: missing word in fortran/symbol.c, conflict_std

If there is no objection, I am planning to commit the following patch as obvious. Cheers, Dominique 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79843 * symbol.c (check_conflict): Add missing "conflicts". 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR testsuite/79843

[PATCH Fortran] Bug 79866 - diagnostics: typo in "Variable %s at %L of type EVENT_TYPE"

If there is no objection, I am planning to commit the following patch as obvious. Cheers, Dominique 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79866 * resolve.c (resolve_symbol): Fix typo. 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR testsuite/79866 * gfortran.dg/co

[Patch committed] Bug 81033 - [8 Regression] Revision r249019 breaks bootstrap on darwin

Patch --- ../_clean/gcc/config/darwin.c 2017-01-01 17:39:06.0 +0100 +++ gcc/config/darwin.c 2017-07-03 14:21:19.0 +0200 @@ -3683,11 +3683,9 @@ default_function_sections: void darwin_function_switched_text_sections (FILE *fp, tree decl, bool new_is_cold) { - char buf[128];

[RFC gfortran] PR53478 - gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

This patch implement the requirement > ... Furthermore, a binding label shall not be > the same as the global identifier of any other global entity, ignoring > differences in case." While looking at the code, I noticed that several %s should be %qs. This is fixed as well by the patch along with

[PATCH] Fix pr81706 tests on darwin

The following patch fixes pr81706 tests on darwin --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr81706.c 2017-10-26 07:16:18.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr81706.c 2017-11-11 16:02:36.0 +0100 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ /* PR libstdc++/81706 */ /* { dg-do compile } */ /*

[PATCH] Fixes for PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693

The following patch fixes PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693 on darwin. --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c2016-01-28 00:30:03.0 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c 2017-11-11 17:16:58.0 +0100 @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ /* { dg-do run } */ +/* { dg-xfail-r

Re: [PATCH] Fixes for PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693

> Le 13 nov. 2017 à 18:40, Mike Stump a écrit : > > On Nov 12, 2017, at 6:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Dominique d'Humières >> wrote: >>> The following patch fixes PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693 on darwin. >>>

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR78990 [5/6/7 Regression] ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result

Hi Paul, Your patch fixes the ICE and pass the tests. However I see At line 22 of file pr78990.f90 Fortran runtime error: Attempting to allocate already allocated variable ‘return_t1' for the original tests (with mold or source). This runtime error depends on the options: % gfc pr78990.f90 %

Re: [PATCH] Fix pr81706 tests on darwin

Committed as revision r254770. Thanks for the review. Dominique > Le 13 nov. 2017 à 18:26, Mike Stump a écrit : > > On Nov 12, 2017, at 6:05 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >> The following patch fixes pr81706 tests on darwin >> >> --- ../_clean/g

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR78990 [5/6/7 Regression] ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result

Looks good to me (as in "pass all my tests"). Thanks, Dominique > Le 18 nov. 2017 à 14:02, Paul Richard Thomas > a écrit : > > Dear Dominique, > > Please find attached a revised patch that I believe fixes the problem > that you found. The changes are the additions in trans-decl.c. > > OK fo

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR83076 - [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_deallocate_scalar_with_status, at fortran/trans.c:1598

Dear Paul, > Bootstrapped and regtested on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk? See my comment 7 in the PR. Dominique

PING [RFC gfortran] PR53478 - gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

Patch waiting for comment at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-11/msg00067.html TIA Dominique

Re: PING [RFC gfortran] PR53478 - gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

Committed as revision r255530. Thanks for the review. Dominique > Le 10 déc. 2017 à 17:22, Dominique d'Humières a écrit : > > Patch waiting for comment at > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-11/msg00067.html > > TIA > > Dominique >

Re: [patch, lingfortran] Bug 83560 - list-directed formatting of INTEGER is missing plus on output

Dear Jerry, The lines +a=12.3456 and +open(unit=10,sign='plus') in gfortran.dg/integer_plus.f90 could probably be removed. >From comment 2 in the PR (and the attached test), it seems that the reporter >is expecting sign=‘plus’ to apply also to namelists, which is not the case >with this pat

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR83076 - [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_deallocate_scalar_with_status, at fortran/trans.c:1598

It also fixes pr78983 and partially pr80235. Thanks Dominique > Le 27 déc. 2017 à 19:04, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > > Hi Paul, > > by the way, the patch is OK for trunk. It is just gcc-7 that I am > worried about. > > Regards > > Thomas

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR25829: Asynchronous I/O (v2)

Hi Nicolas, I have applied your patch on top of revision r261130 on x86_64-apple-darwin17 (SSD with APFS file system). The only remaining failure on my own tests is for the test (pr35840) write(10,*, asynchronous="Y"//"E"//trim("S ")) end giving at run time At line 1 of file pr35840.f90 (uni

[PATCH] PR79854 - diagnostics: gfc_conv_constant_to_tree should be gfc_internal_error

Is the following patch OK for the trunk? TIA Dominique 2018-06-10 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79854 * trans-const.c: Remove include "diagnostic-core.h" (gfc_conv_constant_to_tree): Replace fatal_error with gcc_unreachable. --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-const.c

Re: [PATCH] PR79854 - diagnostics: gfc_conv_constant_to_tree should be gfc_internal_error

Committed as r261387. Thanks, Dominique > Le 10 juin 2018 à 14:25, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > > Hi Dominique, > >> Is the following patch OK for the trunk? >> TIA >> Dominique >> 2018-06-10 Dominique d'Humieres >> PR fortran/79854 >> * trans-const.c: Remove include "diagnost

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR25829: Asynchronous I/O (v2)

>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2003_inquire_1.f03 -O1 execution test > > This seems to be a bug in the test suite. It tries to find out whether an id > is pending that is never initialized. > >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2003_io_1.f03 -O* > > And another bug in the test suite. This time the wait afte

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR86321

The patch fixes PR86321 without regression. Thanks, Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths

Hi Janne, With this patch, bootstrap fails with ../../work/gcc/fortran/array.c: In function 'bool gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor(gfc_expr*)': ../../work/gcc/fortran/array.c:2062:36: error: unknown conversion type character 'l' in format [-Werror=format=] current_length, &p->expr->

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths

I have finally bootstrapped gfortran with the two patches applied and the spurious warnings with -Wall are now gone (limited testing), but I see a regression for gfortran.dg/string_1.f90 due to an additional error /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/string_1.f90:13:15: print *, len(s)

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths

.454u 21.185s 0:35.29 95.2% 0+0k 0+0io 955pf+0w Dominique > Le 21 janv. 2018 à 12:11, Janne Blomqvist a écrit > : > > PING > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Janne Blomqvist > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Janne Blomqvist >> wrote: >>

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37577 - [meta-bug] change internal array descriptor format for better syntax, C interop TR, rank 15

Dear Paul, The test suite passed without new regression with both -m32 and -m64. Thanks for the work, Dominique

[RFA PATCH] Bug 84094 - several correctness issues in gfortran.dg

Is the following patch OK? For associate_23.f90 I have restricted should_work to two elements, an alternative would be to use ASSOCIATE(should_work=>char_var_dim(1:3)); any preference? Note that none of these invalid codes are detected by gfortran, except intrinsic_actual_4.f90 which gives a co

Re: [PATCH] Fix handling of arguments in statement functions

Hi Steve, With your patch applied to revision r257559, I get the following failures /opt/gcc/p_work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/statement_function_3.f:5:72: Warning: Obsolescent feature: Statement function at (1) /opt/gcc/p_work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/statement_function_3.f:3:24: Error: Argume

[PATCH Fortran committed] PR 84354 - Replace '%qs' with %qs in fortran/decl.c

Patch committed as obvious at revision r257750. Dominique --- trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c2018/02/16 17:42:08 257749 +++ trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c2018/02/16 18:01:02 257750 @@ -3302,7 +3302,7 @@ kind_expr = gfc_copy_expr (c1->initializer); else if (!(actua

[Patch fortran] PR32957 - C/Fortran interoperability and -fdefault-integer-8

Hi all, I have noticed a recent interest to fix problems with -fdefault-integer-8. Please don’t forget to mark new PRs as blocking pr32770. I have also posted new results for the test suite. I think it is a good time to submit the updated attached patch fixing some C/Fortran interoperability i

Re: [Patch fortran] PR32957 - C/Fortran interoperability and -fdefault-integer-8

Thanks for the quick review, committed as r257985. I have spotted a few similar issues in my recent testing and I have problem with gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_10.f03 when using -fdefault-integer-8: /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_10.f03:66:31: integer(c_int) function fun

Re: [PATCH][darwin] Work around missing LTO debug support for Mach-O, PR82005

> Le 1 mars 2018 à 09:37, Richard Biener a écrit : > > In the PR Dominique says "With the patch the failures (-m32/-m64) went > down from 1059 to 467" which is a nice improvement. I'm not set up > to bootstrap on darwin but I expect Dominque did so. Indeed! > > So - ok for trunk? From my

  1   2   3   4   5   >