Ping [PATCHv3, gfortran] Escalate failure when Hollerith constant to real conversion fails [PR103628]

Hi, Gently ping this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/613497.html Thanks Gui Haochen 在 2023/3/7 16:55, HAO CHEN GUI 写道: > Hi, > The patch escalates the failure when Hollerith constant to real conversion > fails in native_interpret_expr. It finally reports an "Cannot sim

[PATCH] Fortran: simplification of NEAREST for large argument [PR109186]

Dear all, I intend to commit the attached obvious patch within 24h unless there are comments. The issue is an off-by-one error in setting up the maximum exponent of the real kind that is passed to mpfr, so that model numbers between huge(x)/2 and huge(x), when given as an argument to NEAREST(arg,

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: procedures with BIND(C) attribute require explicit interface [PR85877]

Hi Thomas, Am 19.03.23 um 08:34 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches: Hi Harald, Am 18.03.23 um 19:52 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches: Hi Harald, the Fortran standard requires an explicit procedure interface in certain situations, such as when they have a BIND(C) attribute (F2018:15.

Re: [patch, fortran, doc] Explicitly mention undefined overflow

Hi Paul, Yes, that's fine for trunk. I wonder if it is worth being explicit that linear congruential pseudo-random number generators can and do fail at -O3? I don't think we should put this into the docs, because that can change at any time. Maybe into porting_to.html, though (where I have on

Re: [patch, fortran, doc] Explicitly mention undefined overflow

On Mär 19 2023, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi > index c483e13686d..93c66b18938 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi > +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi > @@ -820,6 +820,7 @@ might in some way or another become visible to

Re: [patch, fortran, doc] Explicitly mention undefined overflow

Hi Thomas, Yes, that's fine for trunk. I wonder if it is worth being explicit that linear congruential pseudo-random number generators can and do fail at -O3? Thanks for the doc patches! Paul On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 at 08:32, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote: > Here's also an update on the docs t

[Patch, fortran] PR87127 - External function not recognised from within an associate block

Hi All, I committed this to 8-branch on 2019-04-24 but not to 9-branch. I have no record of why I did this. The patch now requires an additional line, && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.proc != PROC_MODULE to prevent the error message in pr88376.f90 from changing to the less helpful Error: Speci

Re: [patch, wwwdocs] Mention finalization

Hi Thomas, Thanks for that! I think that your one-liner says it all :-) There are three PRs left open that PR37336 depends on: PR65347: Is partially fixed. The F2003/8 feature of finalization of a structure constructor within an array constructor doesn't work. I wonder if a compile option -finali

[patch, fortran, doc] Explicitly mention undefined overflow

Here's also an update on the docs to explicitly mention behavior on overflow. Maybe this will reach another 0.05% of users... OK for trunk? Best regards Thomas gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: * gfortran.texi: Mention behavior on overflow. diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/f

[patch, wwwdocs] Mention finalization

Hi, the sentence below seems a bit short for such a huge undertaking, but I could not think of anything else to day. Tested with "tidy -e". OK for wwwdocs? Best regards Thomas diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html index c8d757b6..a4b71ffa 100644 --- a/

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: procedures with BIND(C) attribute require explicit interface [PR85877]

Hi Harald, Am 18.03.23 um 19:52 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches: Hi Harald, the Fortran standard requires an explicit procedure interface in certain situations, such as when they have a BIND(C) attribute (F2018:15.4.2.2). The attached patch adds a check for this. Regtested on x86_64-pc