On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:52:43AM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> > While I understand the intent of 'positive form' vs 'negative form', the
> > above might be clearer as
> >
> > Usage of intrinsics can be implemented either by generating a call
> > to the libgfortran library function or by
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024, Mikael Morin wrote:
> *PING*
>
> Joseph, could you take a quick look at the handling of the new option?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/661267.html
Individual new options like this are expected to be reviewed by
maintainers / reviewers for the rel
On 9/18/24 1:20 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
OK for trunk?
OK and thanks.
Jerry
--- snip ---
Am 19.09.24 um 12:16 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
Hi Thomas,
submitting your patch as part of the mail got it corrupted by some mailer
adding line breaks. It does not apply for me. Because I can't test it, I have
more questions, see below:
I have attached it.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:22:15 +020
Am 19.09.24 um 11:55 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
Hi Thomas,
thanks for the patch. I have one proposal/question and one missing verb (IMO).
Else the patch looks fine to me. Ok for trunk.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
index 829ab00c665..e5ffe67 100644
---
Hi Andre,
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
index 66a3635404a..a214b8bc1b3 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
@@ -711,17 +711,9 @@ gfc_arith_uminus (gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr **resultp)
case BT_UNSIGNED:
{
if (pedantic)
-
Minor update – addressing the issues that Andre raised (thanks!):
'Add.' → 'New functions.' in the ChangeLog for 'fortran.c' and otherwise
libgomp.texi changes, only:
A bunch of typo fixes (preexisting and in the new text). I also added an
made-up example UUID for the GPUs, which should help
Hi Andre,
thanks for reading the patch + commenting.
Andre Vehreschild wrote:
in the changelog of libgomp:
* fortran.c (omp_get_uid_from_device_,
omp_get_uid_from_device_8_): Add.
"Add." what? Can you be more specific, i.e. is it just a dummy or prototype?
Neither. It is a f
Hi all,
in PR84870 an ICE was reported, that has been fixed in the meantime by some
other patch. Nevertheless did a testcase reveal that the memory handling still
was not correct. I.e. the test case in the patch was answering 2 for both x.b.a
and y.b.a which is not correct.
For a coarray all memo
Hi Tobias,
in the changelog of libgomp:
* fortran.c (omp_get_uid_from_device_,
omp_get_uid_from_device_8_): Add.
"Add." what? Can you be more specific, i.e. is it just a dummy or prototype?
In the libgomp/libgomp.texi
+@node omp_get_uid_from_device
+@subsection @code{omp_get_ui
Hi all,
in order to know and potentially re-use a specific offload device
(reproducibility,
affinity wise close to a CPU (socket), …) a mapping between an (universal?)
unique
identifier and the OpenMP device number is useful. Thus, TR13 added support for
it.
This is a collateral patch caused
Hi all,
the attached patch fixes an ICE when compiling with -fcoarray=lib and using
(proc_-)pointer component in a coarray. The code was looking at the wrong
location for the caf-token.
Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / Fedora 39. Ok for mainline?
Regards,
Andre
--
Andre Vehreschild *
Hi Thomas,
thanks for review. Committed with the changes requested as:
gcc-15-3711-gde915fbe3cb
Thanks again.
Regards,
Andre
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:24:19 +0200
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> > Regtested ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / Fedora 39. Ok for mainline?
>
> Extremely minor
Hi Thomas,
submitting your patch as part of the mail got it corrupted by some mailer
adding line breaks. It does not apply for me. Because I can't test it, I have
more questions, see below:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:22:15 +0200
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> This patch adds random number support for UNSIG
Hi Thomas,
this look fine to. Ok for trunk.
Thanks for the patch,
Andre
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:20:44 +0200
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> OK for trunk?
>
> This is based on the previous submissions. Again, this does not
> generate a new library version; rather it re-uses the signed
> integer v
Hi Thomas,
thanks for the patch. I have one proposal/question and one missing verb (IMO).
Else the patch looks fine to me. Ok for trunk.
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
> index 829ab00c665..e5ffe67 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
> +++ b/gcc/fortr
Hi Thomas,
comitted as gcc-15-3707-g361903ad1af.
Thanks for the review. I am reviewing your unsigned work at the moment.
Thanks again and regards,
Andre
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:18:20 +0200
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 18.09.24 um 12:31 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
> > Regtested ok on x86_64
Hi Thomas,
unfortunately I have some questions. Most of them are for my understanding.
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> index 66a3635404a..a214b8bc1b3 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> @@ -711,17 +711,9 @@ gfc_arith_uminus (gfc_expr *op
18 matches
Mail list logo
