On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 2:02 AM Yuao Ma wrote:
> 2. The diagnostic location appears to have an off-by-one error.
> Consider the diagnostic for conditional_4.f90. Ideally, I'd like
> points (1) and (2) to reference the true_expr and false_expr,
> respectively. However, the current output is odd: (1
Am 30.08.25 um 18:22 schrieb Jerry D:
On 8/30/25 9:16 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
On 8/30/25 18:04, Jerry D wrote:
On 8/30/25 8:04 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi All,
This patch is only a temporary fix because the chunks in trans-
array.cc are representation dependent. As a whole, the patch
On 8/30/25 8:04 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi All,
This patch is only a temporary fix because the chunks in trans-array.cc
are representation dependent. As a whole, the patch is so
straightforward that the ChangeLog serves as an explanation.
Regtests with FC32/x86_64 - OK for mainline?
On 8/30/25 9:16 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
On 8/30/25 18:04, Jerry D wrote:
On 8/30/25 8:04 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi All,
This patch is only a temporary fix because the chunks in trans-
array.cc are representation dependent. As a whole, the patch is so
straightforward that the ChangeL
On 8/30/25 18:04, Jerry D wrote:
On 8/30/25 8:04 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi All,
This patch is only a temporary fix because the chunks in trans-
array.cc are representation dependent. As a whole, the patch is so
straightforward that the ChangeLog serves as an explanation.
Regtests wi
Hi All,
This patch is only a temporary fix because the chunks in trans-array.cc are
representation dependent. As a whole, the patch is so straightforward that
the ChangeLog serves as an explanation.
Regtests with FC32/x86_64 - OK for mainline?
Paul
Change.Logs
Description: Binary data
diff --g
