se that needs to be done.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* developer options: -fdump-generic-nodes initial incorporation
Signed-off-by: Robert Dubner
---
gcc/Makefile.in |3 +-
gcc/common.opt|4 +
gcc/dump-generic-nodes.cc | 1958 +
therwise exist in GCC.
I suppose the question for you is, "Is it useful enough?"
I won't be offended if the answer is "No" and I hope you won't be offended
by my not having the bandwidth to address your very thoughtful and valid
observations about how it could b
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Klose
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 04:26
> To: Joseph Myers
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; James K. Lowden
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, in 8 notes + toplevel patch
>
> On 17.12.24 00:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024, Matth
Joseph, I am Bob Dubner, the other half of the development team for the
COBOL front end. Conceptually, I regard the front end as having a blurry
line down the middle of it; Jim primarily does parsing, I generate the
GENERIC tree.
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers
> Sent: Thursday
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Matz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 09:50
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; jklow...@symas.com; Joseph Myers
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] COBOL 3/8 gen: GENERIC interface
>
> Hell
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 02:43
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: jklow...@symas.com; Joseph Myers ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] COBOL 3/8 gen: GENERIC interface
>
[massive snip. Snip? N
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 02:43
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: jklow...@symas.com; Joseph Myers ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] COBOL 3/8 gen: GENERIC interface
>
> Btw, is recursion allowed?
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 14:21
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] COBOL 1/8 hdr: header files
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Robert Dubner wrote:
>
>
Richard, a bunch of things you address are in my bailwick.
When Jim and I set out to create a COBOL front end, I knew *NOTHING*
about, well, anything vis-à-vis GCC. I barely knew how it worked. Some
things I had to figure out even before I knew how to figure anything outl
notably, creating funct
I am going to trim back some of the older stuff.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 08:32
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: jklow...@symas.com; Joseph Myers ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] COBOL 3/8 gen: GENERIC
> -Original Message-
> From: David Malcolm
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:39
> To: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL 9/15 532K api: GENERIC interface
>
> On Sat, 2025-02-15 at 16:02 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> > From 5d53920602e234e4d99ae
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Koning
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 13:22
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: Matthias Klose ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL 3/15 92K bld: config and build machinery
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2025, at 8:18 PM, James K. Lowden
> wrote:
nd.cc: New file.
> > * util.cc: New file.
I have trimmed away everything; I hope that's not too radical.
I have been addressing many of the comments in your four messages. I just
committed a bunch of changes to our repository; here is the ChangeLog entry:
2025-02-17 R
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Pinski
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 02:13
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL v3: 8/14 516K api: GENERIC interface
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:52 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > From f89a50
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Klose
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 06:55
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; James K. Lowden
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL 3/15 92K bld: config and build machinery
>
> libgcobol/ChangeLog
> * Makefile.in: New file.
> * acinclude.m4: N
Richard and Jakub, and everybody else who has offered advice and help
I trust you realize that your message means Jim and I are reaching the top
of a mountain we've been climbing for several years now.
This is very exciting.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Bob Dubner
> -Original Message-
@@ Ada front end Arnaud Charlet
Ada front end Eric Botcazou
Ada front end Marc Poulhiès
Ada front end Pierre-Marie de Rodat
+COBOL front end Robert Dubner
c++ Jason Merrill
c
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 17:40
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add Robert Dubner to Maintainers
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 02:24:26PM -0500, Robert Dubner wrote:
&
I trust you'll understand why I haven't yet replied to the roughly
three-dozen messages that came roaring through today. It's been a lot to
absorb.
I will start by saying, "Thank you". I didn't fully understand the
implications of adding 100,000 or so lines of code, especially when our
under
Earlier in this discussion of a testsuite, the question came up about
generating an error return in COBOL source code.
In COBOL, "GOBACK ERROR 1." is the equivalent of a C "return 1;". When
executed in the initial "top-level" program-id, it results in the value 1
being passed back to the _start
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 03:23
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; Iain Sandoe
> ; GCC Patches ;
> jklow...@schemamania.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3] Simple cobol.dg testsuite
>
> On Tue, Ma
Based on the PR119214 discussion about "-O -ftracer" causing the assembler
to fail, I offer the following patch.
Okay for trunk? (Gives me shivers to say that the first time!)
Author: Robert Dubner
Date: Thu Mar 13 21:03:46 2025 -0400
COBOL: Prevent use of ASM_EXPR for optim
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:58
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; James K. Lowden
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Mar 0
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:58
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; James K. Lowden
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Mar 0
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 08:35
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:46:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:50
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; James K. Lowden
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Ma
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Martin
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 06:27
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Remove unnecesssary CPPFLAGS update and restore
> MacOS build
>
> The build currently fails on MacOS even when the Cobol fro
compiler
they maintain.
arm port (MVE) Christophe Lyon
callgraph Martin Jambor
C front end Marek Polacek
-COBOL front end Robert Dubner
CTF, BTFIndu Bhagat
CTF, BTF, bpf port
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 08:46
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol/119229 - fix external variable declaration
>
> The following makes vs_external_reference behave like documented,
declare
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Orth
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 15:07
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: Andreas Schwab ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL v3: 3/14 80K bld: config and build machinery
>
> Hi James,
>
> > Our intention, tell me if you disagree, i
This works on a x86_64-linux machine, although I had to do a complete
rebuild to make it take.
If this meets with the approval of the global reviewers, please apply it,
with a suitable commit message.
The main characteristic of my trying to cope with modifying my workflow
and coping with the GCC
age-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 14:12
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value from
_Float128
> to tree
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 08:20
> To: rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] libgcobol: Add configure checks for iconv.
>
> Tested on x86_64 Linux, Darwin, OK for trunk?
> thanks
> Iain
I ran my full test suite, inc
ly it.
I regret any confusion.
Bob D.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 04:29
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Address some iconv issues.
>
> Hello Robert.
>
> I fear we might b
I seek benediction. Failing that, I ask for advice.
This patch makes it possible for me to set the environment variable
'CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-ggdb -O0"' at configure time, and end up with a
debuggable libgcobol.so.
Is this a correct way to gain that capability?
If not, then how?
If so, then O
d for sure, but I suppose I've been counting on the
strfromf128 routines to round sensibly. I guess if mpfr can handle that
kind of thing, then we should switch to mpfr. I am not that familiar with
mpfr.
> -----Original Message-
> From: Robert Dubner
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2
As you have no doubt figured out, for input and output I am converting, as
best I can, from system locale to CP1252 for "ASCII" and CP1140 for
EBCDIC.
We can't use UTF-8 internally for most purposes, because going back to a
time before the Cuban Missile Crisis means that COBOL is built around an
a
Just so I understand your terminology:
Am I to understand that by pulling master, and then applying the patch in
this message, that the source code will be at the point you are ready to
have me test?
I am more used to being three hours ahead of the US west coast than I am
to being five hours behi
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 15:25
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Robert Dubner ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value from
_Float128
> to tree
>
> On Fri, 21 Ma
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dubner
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 14:23
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value from
_Float128
> to tree
>
> Crossed in the mail
Jim will be ready with some additional changes Tuesday morning. Those
will be on top of the entire Pile O'Patches that were mostly authored by
you and Jakub.
I'll prepare the commit for the whole shebang when he's done.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Monday, Mar
ared to go chasing down the
implications of switching away from CP1252 on the systems that I have
been, and continue to, focus on: X86_64 and aarch64.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 19:43
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: GCC Patches
>
I am stepping my way through the code that initializes the COBOL variable
01 FLOATLONG FLOAT-LONG VALUE 12345678.
In the version created by Richard's patch, I arrive at line 15721, which I
have flagged with /**/. (My editor lacks the ability too prepend line
numbers, sadly.)
case F
Again: I am not sure how I can best help here, or even if I can.
I am happy to run tests, so just ask.
I am going to go back working on converting the larger UAT test suite.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dubner
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 15:33
> To: Richard Bi
I'm going to take your word on this one.
LGTM
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 06:21
> To: jklow...@cobolworx.com; rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Move includes before system.h
>
> A trivial patch that ensures h
You and Iain Sandoe should coordinate on this one, given the work he's
doing on libquadmath.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schwab
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 06:42
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: jklow...@cobolworx.com; rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: [PATCH] libgcobol: use sta
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 05:04
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value from
_Float128
> to tree
>
> On Sun, 23 Ma
I am taking your word for it on testing.
LGTM
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 05:01
> To: jklow...@cobolworx.com; rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] libgcobol: Ensure that config.h is included.
>
> This one is quite simp
Taking your word on testing,
LGTM
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 20:59
> To: jklow...@schemamania.org; rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] libgcobol: Only use random_r if it is available
> [PR119295]
>
> Tested on x86_64
Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit
signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long long
really *do* change from platform to platform, I am loathe to stand in the
way of your MacOS progress.
It passes my full set of tests, and "make check-co
Thank you for all that. And, yes, I did a global replace on /t instead of
\t, and I feel suitably stupid about that.
I'll fix all that up. When we're ready to go with it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 07:07
> To: R
How about you create the new patch and just edit out the regenerated
configure before sending the e-mail? Typing "autoreconf" isn't hard.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:06
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: James
I am about to apply this patch myself via a "git cherry-pick".
(There is something in this .patch file that 'git am' doesn't like, but
the
error messages from the hook are not making sense to me. So I am going
around it.)
>From af3d308252a55feb77c0f3e73da30aa8ea192798 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Fr
No speical reason. There’s more than one way to do things. It wasn’t
obvious to me when I wrote them that one way was better than another.
All these suggestions do nothing to help me modify 800 or so programs. If I
could change one every 12 minutes that’s 20 workdays of modifications.
Fr
This is a second attempt at this program.
This one was created by a Python program. It accessed the cobolworx.com
git repository gcc/cobol/tests/check_88/, pulled out the .cbl source and
the known-good.txt files, and combined them. I had to edit it slightly to
handle the warning that code genera
Once more into the breach...
These changes work on x86_64-linux
Okay for trunk?
cobol: add cobol.dg/group1/escape.cob test; modify cobol.dg/gd.exp to
handle it
gcc/testsuite
* cobol.dg/dg.exp: modified to recurse into directories without
.exp files and find *.cob files therein
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 13:55
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: add cobol.dg/group1/escape.cob test; modify
> cobol.dg/gd.exp to handle it
>
> On Sun, Mar 1
> -Original Message-
> From: David Malcolm
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 13:00
> To: Robert Dubner ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]cobol: create new
> gcc/testsuite/cobol.dg/group1/check_88.cob test
>
> On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 16:14 -0500, Rober
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 17:04
> To: Robert Dubner ; Iain Sandoe
> ; GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Eliminate CPPFLAGS assignment from Make-
> lang.in [PR119213].
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 09:5
I'll close out PR119213.
And next time I'll use "Likewise."
>From 8d6c8efdd9495259cc5ed1d6537c694791bd4661 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Dubner mailto:rdub...@symas.com
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:13:50 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Eliminate CPPFLAGS assignment from Make-lang.in
[PR119213].
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schwab
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 04:13
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL v3: 3/14 80K bld: config and build machinery
>
> On Mär 13 2025, James K. Lowden wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:18:22 +
These tests have been curated for relative shortness of output. The worst
case has 61 lines.
I am hoping that this one is...
Okay for trunk?
>From 457d94c65047856123185716e882af18833c67ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Dubner mailto:rdub...@symas.com
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:47:05 -0400
S
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schwab
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 04:13
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL v3: 3/14 80K bld: config and build machinery
>
> On Mär 13 2025, James K. Lowden wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:18:22 +
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 12:46
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Eighteen new testcases to cobol.dg/group1.
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:34:36AM -0500, Robert
With thanks to Iain for determining those #includes were unnecessary.
Bob D.
>From c7bba243fc0feea42f4be864e8bf73bc9249d9d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Dubner mailto:rdub...@symas.com
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:45:17 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] libgcobol: Remove unused headers from shared sourc
Iain, I tried it in my local test suite, and everything worked.
So, it looks good to me. You'll probably notice that you misspelled
"system" as "sytem", so I won't mention it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 19:52
> To: rdub...@symas.com; gcc-patc
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:24
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] [cobol] make sources coretypes.h and tree.h clean
>
> The following removes HOWEVER_GCC_DEFINES_TREE and the alt
This message appears to have been posted twice, and I don't see a [PATCH
1/2]
Am I missing something?
Bob D.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:24
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] [
sn't being built with debug_info, and I
need it to be.
I'll start looking, but any help would be appreciated.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 17:07
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> S
Yes. Back in about 75 minutes.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 13:18
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [cobol] make sources coretypes.h and tree.h
clean
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 13:08
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [cobol] make sources coretypes.h and tree.h
clean
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:04:0
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 10:16
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] [cobol] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value
> from _Float128 to tree
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, Richard B
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:36
> To: Richard Biener ; Robert Dubner
;
> James K. Lowden ; Richard Sandiford
>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] fold-const, cobol: Add native_encode_wide_int
ut-file out for a spin.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 03:29
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: Robert Dubner ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value from
_Float128
> to t
I did what I described to apply the patch copied in this e-mail
The results: You started with two errors in our gcc/cobol/tests, one was
the 55.5556 problem. That one is gone. But another test where a
couple of results that should be 0.01 and 0.1 are coming out .00 and .0
You started with
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 03:48
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH][RFC] [cobol] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value
> from _Float128 to tree
>
> On Thu,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Wakely
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 18:01
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Robert Dubner
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Replace quadratic loop removing std::set
> elements
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 202
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Sandoe
> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 15:34
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; James K. Lowden
> ; Richard Biener ; GCC Patches
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Fix up cobol/{charmaps,valconv}.cc rules
>
>
>From 59665ed295feeea4647f3c9473b338b1c0b48ec7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Dubner mailto:rdub...@symas.com
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 17:01:59 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Change some dubious sprintf() calls to xasprintf
in
genapi.cc
These calls were into fixed-length arrays that might be too
ubscripts up to 2^64-1 seem to be a great
sufficiency.
auto sub = real_to_integer (TREE_REAL_CST_PTR
(subscript->data.value_of()));
REAL_VALUE_TYPE csub;
real_from_integer (&csub, VOIDmode, sub, SIGNED);
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Sunday,
>From 6602fc076a883cf0cd20a37655a6bd9c146a2770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Dubner
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:33:42 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Set compile-time and run-time signable_e bits the
same
for RETURN-CODE.
This fix reverts the recent cobol_langhook_post_options change setting
fla
ikewise
Co-authored-by: Richard Biener mailto:rgue...@suse.de
Co-authored-by: Jakub Jelinek mailto:ja...@redhat.com
Co-authored-by: James K. Lowden mailto:jklow...@cobolworx.com
Co-authored-by: Robert Dubner mailto:rdub...@symas.com
---
gcc/cobol/cdf.y | 2 +-
gcc/cobol/cdfval
njoy it."
"Fun" can have many meanings.)
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dubner
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 16:12
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [committed] cobol: Changes to eliminate _Float128 from the
front
> end
>
> I am putting
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 08:30
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; Richard Biener
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Get rid of __int128 uses in the COBOL FE
> [PR119242]
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:41:09PM -
All this said, I am more than a little astonished at the progress that's
being made here.
Bob D.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 15:25
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Robert Dubner ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 08:24
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; Richard Biener
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol, v2: Get rid of __int128 uses in the COBOL FE
> [PR119242]
>
&
Jim discovered a couple of tests that succeed on my system didn't succeed
on his. That led to the discovery that some stuff in my test environment
hadn't actually found its way in to trunk.
This fixes that.
>From 0747d51de55ae29430cb3ae6371210076d7b7c0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 03:48
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH][RFC] [cobol] change cbl_field_data_t::etc_t::value
> from _Float128 to tree
>
> On Thu,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 13:28
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; Richard Biener
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol, v2: Get rid of __int128 uses in the COBOL FE
> [PR119242]
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 19:49
> To: Robert Dubner ; James K. Lowden
> ; Richard Biener
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Get rid of __int128 uses in the COBOL FE
> [PR119242]
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 19:49
> To: Robert Dubner ; James K. Lowden
> ; Richard Biener
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Get rid of __int128 uses in the COBOL FE
> [PR119242]
>
>
This is the initial group of testcases programmatically converted from the
autom4te UAT tests in the cobolworx repository.
These tests behave as intended on an x86_64-linux platform.
>From c8d32f79a27e034979f838e7f611cb4ea049639f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Dubner
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 1
cobol: New testcases for reference modification.
gcc/testsuite
* cobol.dg/group2/Dynamic_reference_modification.cob: New
testcase.
* cobol.dg/group2/Length_overflow__1_.cob: Likewise.
* cobol.dg/group2/Length_overflow__2_.cob: Likewise.
* co
I just pushed another eleven testcases, one of which is inspired by the
original PR.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 01:14
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Patches GCC
> Subject: Re: [committed] cobol: Proper comparison
This patch eliminates the error.
cobol: Proper comparison of alphanumeric to refmoded numeric-display
[PR119682]
gcc/cobol
PR cobol/119682
* genapi.cc: (cobol_compare): Change the call to
__gg__compare().
libgcobol
PR cobol/119682
* c
eans, we should do so.
I just wasn't able figure out how to do it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 10:40
> To: Robert Dubner ; James K. Lowden
> ; Richard Biener
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] cobol: Fix up cobol/{char
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 08:12
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rdub...@symas.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [COBOL] use native_encode_real
>
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 08:54:5
I didn't have to add any additional files. I was able to move
declarations needed by both libgcobol and gcc/cobol to more appropriate .h
files that already existed.
This change means that none of the gcc/cobol source code modules refer to
libgcobol.h any longer.
>From ea7c3a4f98ae58b446c7280c01a
--Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:12
> To: Iain Sandoe
> Cc: Robert Dubner ; James K. Lowden
> ; Richard Biener ; GCC Patches
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Fix up cobol/{charmaps,valconv}.cc rules
>
> On Sat, Mar 29
Follow-up. I risked wrath from my family and grabbed a minute. Tried
the -L thing and eliminated all the SED statements on the .h files.
It worked.
Are there reasons not to use it?
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dubner
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 09:52
> To: J
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
