Hi Sales team,
We are A&C International Trading Service Company, reseller of software in
Vietnam.
You could access our information as a link: https://licensesoft.vn/
Our customer would like to buy the license of GCC - GNU Fortran.
Could you quote us the reseller price?
Kindly advise us the pro
Le 22/11/2023 à 21:36, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Hi Mikael!
On 11/22/23 10:36, Mikael Morin wrote:
(...)
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/error.cc b/gcc/fortran/error.cc
index 2ac51e95e4d..be715b50469 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/error.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/error.cc
@@ -980,7 +980,11 @@ char const*
notify_
> [CCing Ian as libgcc maintainer]
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:14:37 +
> "Zhu, Lipeng" wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lipeng,
> > > >
> > > > >>> Sure, as your comments, in the patch V6, I added 3 test cases
> > > > >>> with OpenMP to test different cases in concurrency respectively:
> > > > >>>
Hello,
Le 22/11/2023 à 22:02, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Dear all,
testcases assumed_rank_8.f90 and assumed_rank_10.f90 are invalid:
NULL() is passed without MOLD to an assumed-rank dummy argument.
This is detected by NAG, but not yet by gfortran (see pr104819).
gfortran even ignores the MOLD arg
I stumbled over this trivial omission which blocks some testcases.
I am not sure whether I have solved the is-same-expr most elegantly,
but I did loosely follow the duplicated-entry check for 'map'. As that's
a restriction to the user, we don't have to catch all and I hope the code
catches the mo
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> I stumbled over this trivial omission which blocks some testcases.
>
> I am not sure whether I have solved the is-same-expr most elegantly,
> but I did loosely follow the duplicated-entry check for 'map'. As that's
> a restriction to
Hi Jakub,
On 23.11.23 15:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I stumbled over this trivial omission which blocks some testcases.
I am not sure whether I have solved the is-same-expr most elegantly,
Answer: I didn't - as expected.
+ if (DECL_U
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:21:50PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> @@ -21663,7 +21666,25 @@ c_parser_omp_depobj (c_parser *parser)
> clause = error_mark_node;
> }
>else if (!strcmp ("destroy", p))
> - kind = OMP_CLAUSE_DEPEND_LAST;
> + {
> + matching_parens c_par
Hi Jakub,
On 23.11.23 16:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:21:50PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
@@ -21663,7 +21666,25 @@ c_parser_omp_depobj (c_parser *parser)
+ else if (depobj != error_mark_node
+ && !operand_equal_p (destobj, depobj,
+
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:59:16PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > There is also OEP_LEXICOGRAPHIC which could be used in addition to that.
> > The question is if we want to consider say
> > #pragma depobj (a[++i]) destroy (a[++i])
> > as same or different (similarly a[foo ()] in both cases).
>
>
Dear all,
the PR is about a redundant obsolescence warning for COMMON when
a symbols appears in the scope of a submodule. As we did not warn
for use-associated symbols, it seemed natural to extend this to
symbols that are used in a submodule. Or am I missing anything?
Regtests cleanly on x86_64
11 matches
Mail list logo
