https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91593
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 47116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47116&action=edit
Peliminary patch
This is a preliminary patch to allow others to check the results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 7 03:06:20 2019
New Revision: 277905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/90374
* io.c (
||2019-11-08
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I just noticed this bug. Since I implemented STREAM I/O in the first place, I
wiil study this a bit and get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92358
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I notoced your report here. I do not get that warning on my system here. I am
using gcc version 9.2.1 20190827 to build with. What are you using?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> Hope you don't mind if I take this.
Hi Thomas, just noticed this one. I can review for you when you are ready.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Nov 24 22:14:59 2019
New Revision: 278660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-24 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/92100
io/trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Nov 25 02:24:55 2019
New Revision: 278664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-24 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/92100
gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
Hi hit the wrong log file for the testsuite entry. It has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Nov 26 22:56:24 2019
New Revision: 278740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-26 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 27 00:50:51 2019
New Revision: 278753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-26 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 28 18:33:20 2019
New Revision: 278817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/90374
* io.c (check_format): Allow zero wid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92350
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> For the added text, cf. PR 60148 and
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00145.html
>
> I missed that patch when writing this PR because it wasn't posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5)
> > Author: jvdelisle
> > Date: Thu Nov 28 18:33:20 2019
> > New Revision: 278817
>
> Jerry,
>
> your change to format.c ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 1 22:29:43 2019
New Revision: 278886
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278886&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-01 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/90374
* io/for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
---snip---
> Jerry,
>
> your change to format.c generates a warning here:
>
> ../../../trunk/libgfortran/io/format.c: In function 'parse_format_list':
> ../../../trunk/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Removing close statement:
$ ./a.out
0 8 4
2 8 4
-10
5 8 4
4 8 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #10)
--- snip ---
>
> 13.7.2.3.3 E and D editing
> ... If e is positive the exponent part contains e digits, otherwise it
> contains the minimum number of digits req
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks for feedback. Hopefully I can get to it next day or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
While working on this I found another issue:
program test
implicit none
real(8) :: rn
character(32) :: afmt, aresult
rn = 0.000314e8_8
write (*,fmt="(E0.8e0, a3)") rn, "<<<"
end
$ gfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
New Revision: 279828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 90374 d0.d, e0.d, es0.d, en0.d, g0.d and ew.d edit descriptors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90274
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
New Revision: 279828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 90374 d0.d, e0.d, es0.d, en0.d, g0.d and ew.d edit descriptors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
> New Revision: 279828
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR 90374 d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Hi Thomas, stating the obvious, I do not find it straight forwaed to interpret
the standards because there are nooks and crannies and corner cases. At least
now I have the basic pieces in place. I will try
||2020-01-13
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The enumerators in inquire.c do not match those set in unit.c.
Something like this is needed.
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93234
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Did we conclude that this is an expected race condition?
I run the example comment 14 and it just hangs for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I think this last patch above fixes the last adjustment needed. I could be
wrong I suppose. Is this ready to close?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #32 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks Thomas, I will have a look. It really helps to have a second pair of
eyes on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93550
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> Created attachment 47800 [details]
> Possible fix
>
> Here is something that Nicolas and I came up with. The theory is that
> pthread_cond_wait can get a spurio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Forgot to mention. Did you test with or without Janne's patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2020-01/msg00158.html
It could be related or influence this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-03-28
02:34:32 UTC ---
Note the comment at line 728 of format.c where we must disable format caching
when we encounter FMT_STRING. The problem is related to saving a pointer to a
string rather than t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-03-30
02:58:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 29751
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29751
Related test case
This example fails with a runtime error and passes with ifort. The othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51825
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52512
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-03-30
03:54:27 UTC ---
Lets take namelist out of the picture here for the case of comment #6
program test_type_extension
type t1_t
real :: x
end type t1_t
type, extends(t1_t) :: t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-03-30
05:05:03 UTC ---
Oops! Disregard Comment #20. There is a not so subtle effect when one mixes up
the letter 'l' and the digit '1' in names.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-01
00:05:14 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 31 20:32:33 2013
New Revision: 197290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-03-31 Jerry DeLisle
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56803
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-01
20:10:02 UTC ---
This is fixed on 4.9 by patch to PR56786, but it patch does need to be
backported.
$ gfc tc56803.f90
$ ./a.out
At line 8 of file tc56803.f90 (unit = 99, file = '/tmp/gfort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56660
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-01
20:33:52 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 1 20:30:41 2013
New Revision: 197321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-01 Jerry DeLisle
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56660
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-01
21:00:36 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 1 20:59:34 2013
New Revision: 197322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-01 Jerry DeLisle
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56981
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-17
00:58:02 UTC ---
There is a seek inside next_record_w_unf. That function is used for DIRECT I/O.
Looks conceptually wrong to me for sequential unformatted. I won't have time
for a few days to l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56981
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-18
01:21:42 UTC ---
I like Jannes idea with the flags. Also, it seems that at the time we open a
file we know it is /dev/null or /dev/nul in some cases by the file name. It
would be very low over
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-27
22:51:47 UTC ---
I am in the process of back port to 4.8 along with Tilos patches for 52512 and
probably 51825.
I will do each separately so we can have a clear record.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52512
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-28
03:24:29 UTC ---
Committed to support backport of fix to PR56786
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 28 02:59:44 2013
New Revision: 198366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198366&root=gcc&v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52512
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-28
16:54:14 UTC ---
Really closed now.
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 28 16:50:19 2013
New Revision: 198373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-28 Je
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-28
16:55:52 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 28 13:47:42 2013
New Revision: 198370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-28 Jerry DeLisle
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-28
17:21:12 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 28 17:20:06 2013
New Revision: 198375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-28 Jerry DeLisle
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51825
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-29
00:55:08 UTC ---
Back port due to silent wrong code.
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 29 00:52:23 2013
New Revision: 198385
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51825
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-04-29
01:27:05 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 29 01:25:43 2013
New Revision: 198386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-28 Jerry DeLisle
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-05-03
20:32:51 UTC ---
I have a patch testing that fixes the items identified in the attachment of
Comment #4 by accepting them as extension.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56660
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-05-05
00:37:10 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. Shall we close this? The type extension bug, PR56117 remains.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-10-28
00:35:41 UTC ---
Tobias, any further information on this one?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-12-19
17:47:54 UTC ---
Putting the Fortran standard aside for a moment, it seems reasonable to me that
we do something about this bug, even if it is as an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47042
Summary: ICE with character pointer in function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46703
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-12-27
01:03:55 UTC ---
-ffloat-store is the first thing I tried and no change. However, the run-time
side, libgfortran, is not compiled normally with -ffloat-store so maybe we
should try that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
||gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-03
14:40:26 UTC ---
I will work on this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-04
05:17:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 22893
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22893
A proposed patch
The regression was caused by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-04
14:24:56 UTC ---
The patch passes regression testing. I will commit tonight with ChangeLog and
test case if someone can approve.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-04
18:24:19 UTC ---
Thanks Janne,
You are absolutely right, the multiple hit_eof's which call the generate_error.
So far I do not think we need to fix anything in hit_eof. Thanks for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-05
03:53:23 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 5 03:53:15 2011
New Revision: 168502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168502
Log:
2011-01-04 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-05
04:18:43 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 5 04:18:39 2011
New Revision: 168503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168503
Log:
2011-01-04 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47204
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37829
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
||2011.01.14 02:13:18
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
||gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
Ever
||2011.01.14 19:52:52
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-14
19:52:52 UTC ---
I will take this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47285
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-14
20:01:18 UTC ---
*** Bug 47284 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47284
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-15
06:33:15 UTC ---
This is easy enough and if you study the code path, it makes sense. The error
flag returned here is passed up the call chain where an "os" error is
generated. When attempting to open
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-15
06:42:33 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 15 06:42:30 2011
New Revision: 168832
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168832
Log:
2011-01-14 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-15
18:16:33 UTC ---
Unpatched on Cygwin on Windows 7, I do not get the segfault. I also do not get
the OS error. The assign error mechanism of the test case picks up that there
is a problem. The windows
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-16
08:29:55 UTC ---
After getting Win7-cygwin build of gcc latest trunk built, I was able to do
some more testing. I could then reproduce another segfault. As Janne
suggested and I certainly agree, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-17
05:59:15 UTC ---
No more segfault on Cygwin, it should be good. Thanks.
||jvdelisle at gcc dot
||gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-17
20:06:02 UTC ---
gathering up
||jvdelisle at gcc dot
||gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-17
20:07:10 UTC ---
Adding to my
at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-17
20:09:05 UTC ---
Adding to my list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-18
13:27:48 UTC ---
It is not resolved because we are waiting for an interpretation from the
Fortran standards committee on whether the test case is valid or invalid
Fortran. If invalid, then we need to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47285
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-22
13:53:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 23076
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23076
A possible patch
This patch seems to be acceptable. I add a try return value to output float to
com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47296
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-22
14:25:52 UTC ---
Taking this one
||2011.01.24 13:12:19
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
||gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47293
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-26
05:45:35 UTC ---
I think this fixes it. Why it was whacked, who knows.
Index: gd_qnan.h
===
--- gd_qnan.h(revision 169141)
+++ gd_q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47285
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-27
02:16:23 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jan 27 02:16:18 2011
New Revision: 169320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169320
Log:
2011-01-26 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47285
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47434
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-27
12:47:04 UTC ---
I agree to fix the NaN case. I have the patch already.
Regarding the other cases:
The copy of the F2008 standard I have says in 10.7.2.3.2 F editing:
"When w is zero, the processor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47434
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-27
16:35:13 UTC ---
I remember the discussion when we first implemented this and we wanted the + on
Inf to be consistent with -Inf.
Oh well, if folks really feel strongly about this, I can change it all
1 - 100 of 2258 matches
Mail list logo
