On 1/19/23 22:03, NightStrike wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 13:33 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> mailto:rep.dot@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 19 January 2023 13:52:55 CET, NightStrike via Fortran
> mailto:fortran@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
>
> >You can, and people naturally do this, and
On 19 January 2023 20:03:38 CET, NightStrike wrote:
>The problem is that patch tracking is unsustainable. You could go the other
>way and have a patch tracker automatically echo messages to the mailing
>list.
Currently it's the other way round. Patchwork collects the patches sent to the
list. E
On 19 January 2023 20:39:08 CET, Jason Merrill wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
>> > This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
>> >
>> > gcc/fortr
Hi Paul,
I got a list of potential candidates by
% grep 'dg-additional-sources .*f90 ' gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ -r
and ran the first one:
% make check-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp=altreturn_9*.*'
On first sight this looked fine.
Cheers,
Harald
Am 19.01.23 um 20:39 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
Hi,
Andrew Benson found a rather horrible bug in my finalization patch that
involved two separate module files and another containing both a module and
the main program. They must be compiled separately for the bug to appear.
This bug arises in finalization because some derived type function resul
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
> > This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
> >
> > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * gfortran.h (gfc_check_include):
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 13:33 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On 19 January 2023 13:52:55 CET, NightStrike via Fortran <
> fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> >You can, and people naturally do this, and I think it's great, but
> >there's usually a response from someone saying "post that to the
> >mai
On 19 January 2023 13:52:55 CET, NightStrike via Fortran
wrote:
>You can, and people naturally do this, and I think it's great, but
>there's usually a response from someone saying "post that to the
>mailing list instead".
The mailing list has a 20-30 year history with reasoning about what curre
This is all about non-rectangular loop nests in OpenMP.
The attached patch depends on the obvious fix for https://gcc.gnu.org/PR108459,
which is together with a nice testcase in Jakub's WIP patch attached to the PR;
without, gfortran.dg/gomp/canonical-loop-1.f90 fails with an ICE (segfault).
My
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 7:46 AM Toon Moene wrote:
>
> On 1/19/23 13:28, NightStrike via Fortran wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:01 Benson Muite via Fortran
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The GCC workflows is quite different from other open source projects
> >> being primarily email based and not using
On 1/19/23 13:28, NightStrike via Fortran wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:01 Benson Muite via Fortran
wrote:
The GCC workflows is quite different from other open source projects
being primarily email based and not using a bug tracker.
There's a bug tracker. I think you mean there isn't a p
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:01 Benson Muite via Fortran
wrote:
> The GCC workflows is quite different from other open source projects
> being primarily email based and not using a bug tracker.
>
There's a bug tracker. I think you mean there isn't a patch tracker (or at
least not a system where you
13 matches
Mail list logo
