Hi!
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 15:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Following the general trend to add a "[-W...]" to the warning messages
> > for both better grouping of the warnings and - more importantly - for
> > providing
> > a means
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 11:33, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 27.11.23 11:20, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> > I think the lack of final '.' in:
>
> Indeed - but you are lagging a bit behind:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 10:15, FX Coudert wrote:
>
> > I regenerate auto* files from time to time for libgfortran. Regenerating
> > them has always been very fragile (using --enable-maintainer-mode),
> > and difficult to get right.
>
> I have never found them difficult to regenerate, but if yo
On Thu, 2 May 2024 at 23:13, FX Coudert wrote:
>
> > libgfortran/ChangeLog:
> > * Makefile.am: Use sub-dirs, amend recipies accordingly.
> > * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>
> Thanks Iain, I’ve tested it both with and without maintainer mode, and
> regenerated files with no issue. I can also confirm
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 14:39, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> As far as I can tell, the attached patch fixes the problems with the reduce
> intrinsic. I would be grateful to the reporters if they would confirm that
> this is the case.
>
> The key to the fix appears in reduce_3.f90, whi
On Sat, 29 May 2021 at 10:03, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:59:20AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > * gfortran.dg/gomp/depend-iterator-1.f90: New test.
> > * gfortran.dg/gomp/depend-iterator-2.f90: New test.
>
> Something I've missed during the rev
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:27 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:14:09PM +0200, Marcel Vollweiler wrote:
> > Add support for device-modifiers for 'omp target device'.
> >
> > 'device_num' and 'ancestor' are now parsed on target device con
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:29 PM Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 7/27/21 5:07 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Hi Sandra, hi Thomas, hi all,
> >
> > @Thomas K: Comments about the following - and of course to the
> > testsuite itself - are highly welcome.
> >
> > In my opinion, the testsuite LGTM and
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:21 AM Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 9/5/21 7:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 11:02 AM Sandra Loosemore
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/5/21 7:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 7:31 PM Sandra Loosemore <
> san...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
