Re: [Patch, fortran] PR100110 - Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global variable

Hi Tobias, Thanks. Commit r11-8255-g67378cd63d62bf0c69e966d1d202a1e586550a68. By the way, I did check that there were no problems with pdt_26.f03 reported by valgrind, given the decrease in the malloc count. Cheers Paul On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 14:08, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 19

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR100110 - Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global variable

Hi Paul, is there a reason why you did not apply the patch to mainline ('master') but only to GCC 11 ('releases/gcc-11')? While GCC 11 is okay, I had expected it to be (only) on mainline! Tobias On 20.04.21 10:55, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: Hi Tobias, Thanks. Commit r11-8255-g67378cd63d62bf0

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR100110 - Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global variable

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:58:32AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > is there a reason why you did not apply the patch to mainline ('master') > but only to GCC 11 ('releases/gcc-11')? > > While GCC 11 is okay, I had expected it to be (only) on mainline! r11-8255 is before the branchpoint, so is both

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR100110 - Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global variable

Answer: Because my 'git pull' somehow got stuck – and showed an old trunk. Your patch just went in before the merge – thus it was on mainline GCC 11 and is now on mainline GCC 12 + GCC 11 branch ... Sorry for the confusion. Tobias On 20.04.21 11:58, Tobias Burnus wrote: Hi Paul, is there a r

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR100110 - Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global variable

Hi Tobias, That was entirely accidental. I should have been more careful about checking the timing of the merge. When I last checked the number of P1s seemed to indicate that there was a while before it would happen. Apologies to all. Paul On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:07, Tobias Burnus wrote: >

[Patch, fortran] PR84119 - Type parameter inquiry for PDT returns array instead of scalar

Hi All, This is another PDT warm-up patch before tackling the real beast: PR82649. As the contributor wrote in the PR, "The F08 standard clearly distinguishes between type parameter definition statements and component definition statements. See R425, R431, R435, and in particular see Note 6.7 whi

Re: [Patch][GCC12] Fortran/OpenMP: Add 'omp depobj' and 'depend(mutexinoutset:'

I have now updated the patch – and intent to commit it tomorrow, unless there are further comments. On 17.03.21 19:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 07:19:29PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: @@ -1831,6 +1852,7 @@ show_omp_node (int level, gfc_code *c) +case EXEC_OMP_DEPOBJ: name

static libgfortran linker warnings

When linking with -static-libgfortran, I get warnings from ld of the form "ld: warning: -z ignore ignored" and "ld: warning: -z record ignored". I can't find those -z options documented anywhere. Why is gfortran adding them?