On 3/5/25 6:34 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Hi all,
attached patch fixes a gimplification error when a pointer remapping on derived
type's components with deferred arrays is made. The issue boiled down to the
dependency analysis being to loose. It saw a dependency as soon as both sides
of the =>
On 2/10/25 2:25 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
[PATCH 7/7] Fortran: Remove deprecated coarray routines [PR107635]
I have applied all patches. Regression tested OK here.
From patch 5 there was one reject:
patching file gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray/send_char_array_1.f90
Hunk #1 FAILED at 39
On 2/13/25 11:59 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hello world,
this was an interesting regression. It came from my recent
patch, where an assert was triggered because a procedure artificial
dummy argument generated for a global symbol did not have the
information if if was a function or a subroutine.
On 2/13/25 1:42 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Am 12.02.25 um 21:49 schrieb Jerry D:
The attached patch is fairly obvious. The use of notify_std is changed
to a gfc_error. Several test cases had to be adjusted.
Regression tested on x86_64.
OK for trunk?
This is not a review, just some random
On 2/13/25 11:48 AM, Jerry D wrote:
On 2/10/25 2:25 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
[PATCH 7/7] Fortran: Remove deprecated coarray routines [PR107635]
I have applied all patches. Regression tested OK here.
From patch 5 there was one reject:
patching file gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray
On 2/19/25 10:08 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
The attached patch does some ground-laying work for OpenMP
deep mapping - touching common gfortran code.
It does so by:
(1)gfc_tree_array_size now can determine the array size not only from
the passed Fortran gfc_expr but also using a descriptor, passe
This attached patch is intended to clarify the '-x' option using '-x
f77' as an example. I was not sure who should review.
Tested by inspecting the generated info file from make info.
OK for trunk and backport to 14?
Regards,
Jerry
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Wed Feb 26 17:26:26 2025 -080
On 2/25/25 9:18 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Hi all,
for some recreation after all the coarray stuff, I found this pr cc'ed to me.
Taking a look at it, I figured that using a SAVE_EXPR on the lhs of the
assignment was doing the harm. The data seems to be not written back into the
vector shaped d
On 2/25/25 11:41 AM, Jürgen Bausa wrote:
In the meantime I found out what is causing the problem. There seems to
be a bug in the connection from gfortran to UCRT (Microsofts universal C
runtime, that ships with Windows 10 and 11). If I switch to a compiler
that uses MSVCRT (Microsoft Visual C run
On 5/10/25 11:33 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Early ping.
Am 06.05.25 um 21:06 schrieb Harald Anlauf:
Dear all,
here's another rather obvious case where a temporary is needed for
an inquiry reference of a complex array which is a component of a
derived type. In contrast to PR119986, the argument
On 5/6/25 10:59 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
the new logic misses the following bad code:
print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), 42)
This now ICEs here.
I suggest to not 'return true' too early before all arguments
have been checked.
Hello all,
The attached patch revises the logic of the checks in
gfc_check_c_associated to handle previous cases that ICE'ed as seen in
the PR. There are multiple gotchas in these cases, particularly with the
optional c_ptr_2 argument.
I factored the logic into two new helper functions. This
On 5/17/25 10:22 AM, Jerry D wrote:
Hello all,
--- snip ---
PS
I managed to clean up the change log and add in Steve:
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Sat May 17 09:45:14 2025 -0700
Fortran: Fix c_associated argument checks.
PR fortran/120049
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the name of patch claims (pr120049-final.diff),
it fixes only the case of direct use of iso_c_binding, but not the
indirect one
push the incremental patch now, go ahead.
Cheers,
Harald
Am 18.05.25 um 23:46 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/18/25 2:34 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/18/25 2:10 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I found 2 corner invalid cases which are silently accepted with
your patch when iso_c_binding is used indirectly
On 5/18/25 2:10 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I found 2 corner invalid cases which are silently accepted with
your patch when iso_c_binding is used indirectly:
print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), C_NULL_FUNPTR)
print *, c_associated(C_NULL_FUNPTR, c_loc(val))
These should get rejected
On 5/18/25 2:34 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/18/25 2:10 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I found 2 corner invalid cases which are silently accepted with
your patch when iso_c_binding is used indirectly:
print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), C_NULL_FUNPTR)
print *, c_associated(C_NULL_FUNPTR
On 5/27/25 11:24 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes a variety of small issues with parsing of
inquiry references of substrings. The testcase exercises variations
of the examples in the PR and ensures that these are successfully
simplified.
Don't try it with other compi
On 5/27/25 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
On 5/27/25 21:02, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:35 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the
After my last commit, I always rerun make check-fortran.
Now I see a bunch of fails. I reverted my patch locally and did a
rebuild and I still see these. Heralds patch still in there.
No failures after reverting this:
commit r16-914-g787a8dec1acedf5561c8ee43bed0b3653fca150d
Author: Harald Anl
On 5/27/25 2:19 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Jerry, all,
that was entirely my fault - attempting a last-minute cleanup
that reordered code, trying to use a refactoring. I've put
on my brown bag and pushed a corrections as obvious as:
r16-921-g74a2281ae18c6d.
See attached.
Caveat: this was tested
On 5/20/25 12:35 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the name of patch claims (pr120049-final.diff),
it fixes only the case of direct use of
On 5/28/25 10:09 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:11:05AM -0700, Jerry D wrote:
The attached patch is simple and self explanatory in the git log entry.
Regression tested on X86_64-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk?
Yes, with one question.
commit
On 5/21/25 6:46 PM, George Rinker wrote:
When I run gfortran (13.1.0 installed 2023/08/20.17:50) from cmd.exe on
a source.f that generates a compiler error, I get a message listing the
first error line and column in normal text, then subsequent messages in
a different color, and then it hangs a
On 6/3/25 3:02 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 30/05/2025 à 22:28, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
When I'm working on a particular area of gfortran, I tend
to use RUNTESTFLAGS to limit what is tested. For example,
I just fixed SPREAD() for scalar source and ncopies < 1.
I do
% cd obj
% gmake
% cd gcc
% gm
The attached patch is simple and self explanatory in the git log entry.
Regression tested on X86_64-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk?
Regards,
Jerrycommit 845768cbead03f76265e491bcf5ea6de7020ff39
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Wed May 28 07:56:12 2025 -0700
Fortran: Adjust handling of optional com
On 6/6/25 5:34 AM, FX Coudert wrote:
Hi,
In commit 5e918a4db9e4a5bdbeafec6881fa8b22a55d3789, regenerated files
were not included in the commit as they should have been. Therefore, a
whitespace fix was not propagated. Sync generated files now, as obtained
from a run with --enable-maintainer-mode.
This was a followup to make the error message a little better.
Committed.
commit c69afa2f1bd7455457ab4e028a6bc51211b2dd20 (HEAD -> master,
origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Thu May 29 10:02:00 2025 -0700
Fortran: Make minor adjustment to error message.
I am getting this tonight.
Jerry
In file included from
/home/jerry/dev/usr/include/c++/16.0.0/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/gthr-default.h:35,
from
/home/jerry/dev/usr/include/c++/16.0.0/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/gthr.h:157,
from
/home/jerry/dev/usr/include/c++/16.
Hi all,
The attached patch fixes a latent issue where we were saving a parsed
and checked format string that had a missing comma. This resulted in the
correct error on the first use of the string, but a missed error on
subsequent uses of the string.
New test case provided.
Regression tested
On 6/13/25 11:20 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I have an octave script that does that. I last used it when I was
working on ASSOCIATE. I'll dig it out and send it to you.
Regards
Paul
Thanks Paul, I will have a look. I was thinking to use Python since many
other scripts in con
On 6/10/25 1:55 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Juni 2025 um 20:37
Von: "Jerry D"
An: "Mikael Morin" , "Harald Anlauf" ,
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: Execution time for gfortran regression testing
On 6/3/25 3:02 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
The b
On 6/15/25 1:22 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Am 15.06.25 um 21:25 schrieb Harald Anlauf:
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes a rejects-valid: in an ALLOCATE statement with
MOLD= present, if the allocate-object has an explicit-shape-spec, the
compatibility of ranks is not required by the standard. (
On 6/18/25 2:02 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
From: Mikael Morin
Regression-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
OK for master?
Was there a PR for this? or something you just ran into?
Not a problem either way, just curious.
It looks OK to me. OK for master.
Jerry
-- >8 --
gcc/fortran/ChangeL
On 1/1/22 10:27 AM, James Secan via Fortran wrote:
This may be considered OT, but from an old code wrangler who started with
FORTRAN II in the 1960s I want to thank everyone who keeps gfortran working and
current, and wish all of you the best in 2022.
Jim Secan
Seattle, WA 98115
Thanks James,
On 1/13/22 12:56 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
there was a regression handling overloaded elemental intrinsics,
leading to an ICE on valid code. Reported by Urban Jost.
The logic for when we need to scalarize a call to an intrinsic
seems to have been broken during the 9-releas
Is there any reason these patches can not be applied and use this test
as a test case?
Regards,
Jerry
On 1/24/22 8:11 AM, Salvatore Filippone via Fortran wrote:
Thanks a lot
(yes, I suspected both gfortran and intel were wrong, precisely because I
could see why you'd need two FINAL calls, but
Remember the days when reading very old cryptic Fortran code? Remember
the fixed line lengths and cryptic variable names!
I fear the Standards committee has achieved history with the Standard
itself it is so difficult to understand sometimes.
Cheers to Paul and Harald for digging on this.
Je
For what it is worth.
On 2/10/22 11:49 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Hi Paul,
Am 10.02.22 um 13:25 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Conclusions on ifort:
(i) The agreement between gfortran, with the patch applied, and ifort is
strongest of all the other brands;
(ii) The disagree
On 2/23/22 2:21 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear Fortranners,
Fortran 2018 added a QUIET= specifier to STOP and ERROR STOP statements.
Janne already implemented the library side code four (4!) years ago,
but so far the frontend implementation was missing.
Furthermore, F2018 allows for
Perhaps someone could work on completing and merging the shared memory
(native) fortran coarrays branch.
Regards,
Jerry
On 3/9/22 6:39 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hello,
I am pleased that I can announce that GCC has been accepted as a
mentoring organization of Google Summer of Code 2022.
Contr
On 4/4/22 12:04 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
Steve's analysis (see PR) showed that we confused the case when a
symbol refererred to a recursive procedure which was named the same
as an intrinsic. The standard allows such recursive references
(see e.g. F2018:19.3.1).
The attac
On 4/4/22 12:09 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Am 29.03.22 um 23:41 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Fortran:
Dear all,
during error recovery on invalid declarations of functions as
coarrays we may hit multiple places with NULL pointer dereferences.
The attached patch provides a minimal and cons
Yes, Thank you Mikael!
On 4/22/22 6:59 AM, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote:
Hi Mikael,
Ping for the four patches starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057757.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-
Elliot,
Let me know what system you want the compiler to run on?
Linux, Windows, PowerPC?
I can guide you through installing on some of these.
Usually we build it from source. However, many linux distributions have
packages you can install easily.
Cheers,
Jerry
On 4/23/22 9:31 AM, Elliot
Hi Herald,
Looks good to me. I have always preferred informative messages.
Thanks,
Jerry
On 7/14/22 1:34 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch introduces error recovery for two cases of using
an invalid array in a declaration of an implied-shape array instead
of
Hi Paul,
Long time no chat. I hope you and yours are well.
I was planning to retire early next year, but with the economy going
south on us I am going to hold off a bit. What a crazy world we are in!
I thought I would drop you a note when I noticed a gfortran finalization
bug 107489. Then
Hi all,
Some of you may recall way back when I established the gfortran IRC
channel to facilitate collaboration on gfortran development.
I have had some discussions with a few people about advancing to newer
technology. One thing I have learned is that the gcc C++ team has
adopted the Matte
workspace. If anyone want to join send me
your email and I will send you an invite.
Well, as always, best regards,
Jerry
On 12/4/22 6:16 AM, Benson Muite wrote:
On 12/4/22 06:52, Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
3. Mattermost looks pretty good and was easy to set up. The free
version is a bit
On 12/8/22 9:25 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi,
On 08.12.22 17:27, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:54:40PM -0800, Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
Other than Benson, I have received no sign of any interest from
gfortran
developers to adopt a teaming/collaboration platform
On 12/8/22 11:14 AM, Holcomb, Katherine A (kah3f) via Fortran wrote:
I was thinking I might try to contribute when I retire, though that may be in a year or
two. But it's been a very long time since I dove into a large software project and it's
intimidating. I do know C (really C++, I haven't
On 12/10/22 1:23 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
I'm submitting the attached patch on behalf of Steve.
It fixes an ICE that occurs on an obscure use of a
statement function as argument to that function.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
Thanks,
Harald
OK, lo
On 12/13/22 12:10 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
--- snip --
Any thoughts from all?
Hi,
I haven't commented earlier as I haven't been active in GFortran
development for a couple of years (new job, kids, etc. etc.). So don't
take my opinions too seriously.
But in general, yes, I do think IRC is sh
Hi all,
The attached patch fixes a regression and is a patch from Steve. I have
regression tested it and provided a test case. It is fairly simple and
I will commit under the "simple" rule in a little while.
Thanks Steve for Patch. Thanks Harald for helping me get back up to
speed on the g
On 12/19/22 2:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 09:12:43AM -0800, Jerry D via Gcc-patches wrote:
The attached patch fixes a regression and is a patch from Steve. I have
regression tested it and provided a test case. It is fairly simple and I
will commit under the "s
I have committed the obvious as simple.
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e76cd96950f49ce21246d44780e972d86b2bcdd
commit r13-4862-g7e76cd96950f49ce21246d44780e972d86b2bcdd
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Thu Dec 22 20:38:57 2022 -0800
Remove not need
On 12/17/22 1:21 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the previous fix for pr103505 introduced a regression that could lead
to wrong array bounds when LBOUND/UBOUND were used in the array spec
of a declaration. The reason was that we tried to simplify too early
the array element spec,
On 12/23/22 6:08 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On 2022-11-11T15:35:44+0100, Richard Biener via Fortran
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 3:13 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
For example, for Fortran code like:
write (*,*) "Hello world"
..., 'gfortran' creates:
struct __st_parameter_dt
On 1/5/23 1:14 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Resending as plain text, as the original version did not appear on the fortran
list...
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Januar 2023 um 22:10 Uhr
Von: "Harald Anlauf"
An: "Paul Richard Thomas"
Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , "Alessandro Fanfarillo"
On 1/11/23 4:06 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
Ping -- the '-mframe-malloc-threshold' idea, at least.
Note that while this issue originally did pop up for Fortran I/O, it's
likewise relevant for other functions that maintain big frames, for
example in newlib:
libc/string/libc_a-memmem.o:.
On 1/18/23 7:42 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Reported by nightstrike, who also tested this patch.
On Windows, we call system() which works as described at
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/system-wsystem?view=msvc-170
Namely, it only fails with "-1" if the command in
A PARAMETER value is not allowed in a DATA statement, similar to an
EQUIVALENCE.
The check for this was in gfc_assign_data_value() in data.cc which turns
out to be too late when trying to assign a zero sized array.
To correct this, the check is moved to match_variable() in primary.cc
where
On 1/19/23 10:21 PM, Benson Muite via Fortran wrote:
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:
>Yo
On 1/20/23 5:46 PM, Jerry D wrote:
A PARAMETER value is not allowed in a DATA statement, similar to an
EQUIVALENCE.
The check for this was in gfc_assign_data_value() in data.cc which turns
out to be too late when trying to assign a zero sized array.
Correction, the chunk in data.cc must
On 1/20/23 9:16 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 1/20/23 5:46 PM, Jerry D wrote:
A PARAMETER value is not allowed in a DATA statement, similar to an
EQUIVALENCE.
The check for this was in gfc_assign_data_value() in data.cc which
turns out to be too late when trying to assign a zero sized array
On 1/20/23 6:13 PM, Jerry DeLisle via Fortran wrote:
Hi all,
The attached patch modifies the following tests to check for line
endings. Some test environments inject superfluous /r characters at
ends of lines. The expression matching in dg-output tests are changed from:
(\n|\r\n|\r)
to
(\r*\
On 1/22/23 5:38 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
Hello,
Le 22/01/2023 à 00:59, Jerry D via Fortran a écrit :
(...)
Proposed ChangeLog entry using git gcc-commit-mklog:
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Sat Jan 21 15:47:19 2023 -0800
Revise the line end tests to pass on certain windows test
Built into Mattermost is a feature called Playbooks.
https://docs.mattermost.com/guides/playbooks.html
For those of you who have accepted invitations and have access, I p;an
to create a Playbook to capture our workflow.
Our workflow in my mind obviously included email for patch approvals and
Committed:
It is not apparent to me that the testsuite/ChangeLog was updated. Maybe
there is a time delay on that?
Please be patient with me as I figure out how all this works.
ommit f963705752e9d0b79a340788166269af417e344e (HEAD -> master,
origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: Jerry DeLisle
On 1/24/23 1:48 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
when checking expressions for array sections, we need to ensure
that these use only type INTEGER. However, it does not make sense
to generate an internal error when encountering wrong types,
but rather take the ordinary route of err
On 1/28/23 9:07 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
a USE associated symbol shall not appear in a COMMON block
(F2018:C8121) and needs to be diagnosed. The patch is
fairly obvious.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
As the PR is marked as a 10/11/12/13 regression,
I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
Please advise.
Jerry
Forwarded Message
Subject: ☠ Buildbot (Sourceware): gcc - failed configure (failure) (master)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 19:31:23 +
From: buil...@sourceware.org
To: Jerry DeLisle
A new failure
On 2/5/23 11:33 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Early gentle ping.
Am 30.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches:
Dear Fortranners,
the subject says it all: in some cases we emit redundant integer division
truncation warnings (2 or 4), where just one would have been sufficien
On 2/6/23 12:10 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
as the PR shows, it is likely not a good idea to try to make an
ASSOCIATE variable static when -fno-automatic is specified, so
rather keep it on the stack.
Attached patch regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
Thanks,
The attached patch is minor and self explanatory. I assume this should
wait for gfortran 14 since no regression involved. Please advise otherwise.
Regression tested on x86-64.
OK for trunk when the time is right?
Regards,
Jerry
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Sat Feb 25 20:30:35 2023 -0800
’
declared here
84 | index_type mstride[GFC_MAX_DIMENSIONS];
| ^~~
In a sense it is a regression. It showed up when builds started to use
-Wmaybe-unitialized.
Cheers,
Harald
Am 26.02.23 um 20:52 schrieb Jerry D via Gcc-patches:
The attached patch is minor and self
Pushed, thanks for feedback
On 2/26/23 11:54 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Just side remarks, the 0 init in the patch is fine.
On 27.02.23 03:53, Jerry D via Gcc-patches wrote:
regarding PACK: since this is a bogus warning as the compiler does
not realize that dim >= 1, wouldn't a
gc
On 3/1/23 4:07 PM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:28:56PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote:
libgfortran/caf/single.c |6 ++
libgfortran/io/async.c |6 ++
libgfortran/io/format.c |3 +--
libgfortran/io/transfer.c
On 3/3/23 3:32 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 3 Mar 2023, at 23:11, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote:
On 2 March 2023 02:23:10 CET, Jerry D wrote:
On 3/1/23 4:07 PM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:28:56PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
wrote
While recovering from an illness here folks I have been following all of
these discussions. I think I will put in my two cents worth.
From what i can see, Paul's patch breaks nothing and fixes many things.
The only thing holding us back is fear we might break something. The
likelihood of act
On 3/9/23 10:08 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached almost obvious patch fixes a NULL pointer dereference
in a check of a symbol with the bind(c) attribute.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This PR is marked as 10/11/12/13 regression, thus it should
q
On 3/17/23 10:12 AM, SANTIAGO JIMENEZ HYDYN wrote:
Good morning, I use the gfortran 8 package for ubuntu 22.10.. however, they
have been removed from the repositories.. do they have a place where I can
download it.
I appreciate your help
M.en C. Hydyn Santiago Jimenez
Centro Universitario de Es
On 4/10/23 1:49 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
when comparing formal and actual arguments of a procedure, there was no
check of rank for derived types from intrinsic module ISO_C_BINDING.
This could lead to a wrong resolution of generic procedures with dummy
argument of related t
On 4/13/23 9:43 AM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
All,
The systems that I've used while hacking on gfortran
bugs and features are starting to show their age. I'm
in the early stage of put together the wishlist for
a budget friendly replacement. While I'll likely go
with a Ryzen7 cpu, NVME M2
On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
have accidentally matched "free" or "data", res
Hello all and gcc overseers,
I received a notice that the MasterMost server providers decided to drop
their free service. Unfortunate and understandable.
I plan to contact the Open Software Lab folks at Oregon State University
to see if they can host for us.
If anyone else has any suggestio
Forgot to copy the list on this.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Hosting our gfortran MatterMost workspace
Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 10:24:11 -0700
From: Jerry D
To: Mark Wielaard
On 4/29/23 5:36 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 08:55:44PM +0200, Bernhard
The attached patch adds a check for the invalid comma and emits a
runtime error if -std=f95,f2003,f2018 are specified at compile time.
Attached patch includes a new test case.
Regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
OK for mainline?
Regards,
Jerry
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Fri May 5 20:
On 5/6/23 11:15 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Hi Jerry, Steve,
I think I have to pour a little water into the wine.
The patch fixes the reported issue only for a comma after
the namelist name, but we still accept a few other illegal
characters, e.g. ';', because:
#define is_separator(c)
n standard conformance mode, or do we?
Cheers,
Harald
On 5/6/23 06:02, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 08:41:48PM -0700, Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
The attached patch adds a check for the invalid comma and emits a
runtime
error if -std=f95,f2003,f2018 are specified
I plan to commit the following as simple.
The issue was a value was being modified on a short namelist read. After
tthe first read gives the correct EOF, a second read would give the
error but modify the variable.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
index 82664dc5f98..3
On 5/17/23 11:52 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch is neat, because it fixes a bug by removing code ;-)
When generating the initializer for a parameter array, we excepted
the case of size 0, which however prevented the detection of array
bounds violations and lea
Sorry about my messages getting chopped.
On 5/25/23 9:34 PM, Jerry DeLisle via Fortran wrote:
Hi all,
I found this message in my spam folder tonight.
Please look. I also sent a note to Damian on this.
Maybe we can get someone to push forward on te native coarrays work?
Other thoughts?
Jerr
On 5/28/23 12:25 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apply for 60% of my work time if there is funding for it.
These are the projects that I would like to push (in no particular order):
- Simplify scalarizer API and usage,
- Create internal APIs (basically split gfortran.h and/or
On 6/1/23 2:18 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Hi Damian, all,
thank you for your input. I have incorporated most of it. Due to Germany
stepping out of nuclear use, I have reduced the cites on these to a minimum. I
don't know anything about the people evaluating the proposal and don't want to
be re
On 6/16/23 12:18 PM, Michael Schneider via Fortran wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for a forum that can provide answers to questions arising with GNU
Fortran. Is this the right place?
Mike Schneider
We have a Mattermost instance I can invite you to for general
discussions and other topics. I can
On 7/27/23 1:36 PM, Allin Cottrell via Fortran wrote:
I have old fortran source code (not my own work) for a specialized
statistical program that I and others find quite useful.
A few years ago I was able to compile it on Linux using gfortran with
std=legacy (and also cross-compile it for Wind
On 8/9/23 7:58 AM, Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran wrote:
I took a look at my calendar and decided to backport right away.
r13-7703-ged049e5d5f36cc0f4318cd93bb6b33ed6f6f2ba7
BTW It is a regression :-)
Paul
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:10, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
Committed to trunk as 'obvio
On 8/11/23 5:34 AM, Jorge D'Elia via Fortran wrote:
Dear GFortran developers,
With the beta gfortran 14.x.y versions we are noticing some runtime
errors in a production code.
One type of runtime errors is related to the concurrent use of the
intrinsic "repeat" when the source code is compiled w
On 8/12/23 6:41 AM, Jorge D'Elia wrote:
Hi Paul,
- Mensaje original -
De: "Paul Richard Thomas"
Para: "Jerry"
CC: "Jorge D'Elia" , "Gfortran List" ,
"Jorge D'Elia"
Enviado: Sábado, 12 de Agosto 2023 3:56:44
Asunto: Re: beta gfortran 14.x.y (using -march=native and intrinsic repeat)
201 - 300 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
