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
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 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
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 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
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 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):
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
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 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
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
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 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
