*PING* — Re: Fortran: Create CLASS(*) early to avoid ICE [PR99254]
Hi Tobias, I just tested your patch and I see a regression: FAIL: gfortran.dg/unlimited_polymorphic_28.f90 -O (test for errors, line 24) Cheers, Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test
Hi Paul, I have your first patch in my working tree for some time. It works as expected without breaking anything in my own tests. I couldn't readily see how to prepare a testcase - ideas? I think the testcase is already in the test suite. Note the problem also affects GCC10 with a new release around the corner. Thanks for your work. Dominique
Re: off-by-one buffer overflow patch
I have proposed a similar patch in pr95998. I cannot commit to git!-( Thanks Dominique
Re: off-by-one buffer overflow patch
Le 2021-03-27 06:36, Jerry DeLisle a écrit : On 3/26/21 10:38 AM, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran wrote: I have proposed a similar patch in pr95998. I cannot commit to git!-( Thanks Dominique I do not see a patch in 95998. Do you need help to do a commit? Jerry I was too quick and did not realize that I did not post the actual patch I have in my working tree, but the Steve's one does the trick. And yes I need help to do a commit. Thanks Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test
Le 2021-03-26 19:20, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit : Hi Dominique, What I meant was a test that would confirm the fix on all targets. BTW thanks for testing the patch! A Paul The second patch works as the first one. IMO a test case for all targets should not delay the fix. Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types
Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me. Thanks for the work, Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types
Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be back ported to at least GCC11. Dominique Le 2021-06-04 17:24, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit : Hi José, I can second Dominique's thanks. I applied it to my tree when you first posted, set the regtest in motion and have not been able to return to gfortran matters since. OK for master. I am especially happy that you have tackled this area and have rationalised it to a substantial degree. The wheel keeps being re-invented by different people, largely for a lack of documentation or coherent self-documentation. I know, as one of the guilty ones. Regards Paul On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 16:05, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran wrote: Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me. Thanks for the work, Dominique -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
Re:[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/93308/93963/94327/94331/97046 problems raised by descriptor handling
Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me provided the updated PR94331.c test file replaces the original one. Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be backported to at least GCC11 (applied and regtested OK). Thanks for the work, Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran v2] PR fortran/93308/93963/94327/94331/97046 problems raised by descriptor handling
Le 2021-06-06 19:58, dhumieres.domini...@free.fr a écrit : Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me provided the updated PR94331.c test file replaces the original one. Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be backported to at least GCC11 (applied and regtested OK). Thanks for the work, Dominique OK for the new version. Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran V3] PR fortran/100683 - Array initialization refuses valid
Hi José, The logic is now much clearer. OK for the new version. Thanks for the work. Dominique
Re: [Patch, fortran V3] PR fortran/100683 - Array initialization refuses valid (list of pending patches)
Hi José, > Thus: Do you have a list of patches pending review? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055924.html PRs 100029 and 100040. I have the patch in my working tree for a long time. It works as expected. OK to commit. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055933.html PRs 100097 and 100098. New patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056169.html OK to commit the new patch. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056168.html PR 96870. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056167.html PR 96724. OK to commit. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056163.html PRs 93308, 93963, 94327, 94331, and 97046. Already OKed at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056184.html and https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056193.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056162.html PR 94104. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056155.html PR 100948. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html PRs 100906, 100907, 100911, 100914, 100915, and 100916. Tis patch works for me when applied to GCC12 (not GCC11) but seems to conflict with the patch for PRs 93308, 93963, 94327, 94331, and 97046. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056152.html PR 10148. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056159.html PR 92621. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055982.html PR 100245. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055949.html PR 100136. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055946.html PR 100132. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055934.html PR 100103. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056169.html PRs 100097 and 100098. OK for me. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055921.html PRs 100024 and 100025. OK for me. Thanks for the great work, but please don't forget to mark the PRs as ASSIGNED and don't hesitate to PING after a week. Dominique
