Sam James writes:
> Andre Vehreschild writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> please note, that I don't know this bisecting very well, so this may very
>> well
>> be a wrong blame. During latest regression testing of the Fortran suite I got
Andre Vehreschild writes:
> Hi all,
>
> please note, that I don't know this bisecting very well, so this may very well
> be a wrong blame. During latest regression testing of the Fortran suite I got
> typebound_operator_7.f03 failing with:
>
> typebound_operator_7.f03:94:25:
>
>94 | u = (u*
Doing this to avoid FPs from grepping but also to avoid the potential
for people learning bad habits.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gfortran.dg/coarray/caf.exp: Fix 'dg-do-run' typo.
* lib/gfortran-dg.exp: Ditto.
* lib/gm2-dg.exp: Ditto.
* lib/go-dg.exp: Ditto.
---
Co
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/modules/reparent-1_c.C: Fix whitespace around '-' in dg
directive.
* gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90: Ditto.
---
Committed as obvious.
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/reparent-1_c.C | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 | 4
The test was disabled/XFAIL'd informally in r0-100012-gcdc6637d7c78ec,
but r15-3890-g34bf6aa41ba539 didn't realize this, causing a FAIL.
Fix that by marking it as XFAIL per the original intent.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/35779
PR fortran/116858
* gfortran.dg/init
dg-error needs an argument for "why" / a comment.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/116858
* gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90: Fix dg-error arguments.
---
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/te
Jerry D writes:
> On 11/25/24 3:09 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> The breakage was caused by the patch for PR109345. As it happens,
>> this part of the patch was not required to fix the PR and looked to
>> be a considerable simplification of the condition. Although correct
>> that a
Thomas Koenig via Gcc writes:
> Hello world,
>
> looking at a few Fortran bug reports, I found some cases where
> it was not clear if the program in question was standard-conforming
> or not. I would propose to add a keyword for that, tentatively
> called "interp".
>
> Comments? Suggestions for
Thomas Koenig writes:
> Hello world,
>
> I noticed that there is no mention of automatically generating
> C prototypes and declarations in the relevant section of
> the docs, "Interoperability with C". This patch remedies that.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
> gcc/fortran/C
> On 29 Jan 2023, at 19:36, Jerry D via Gcc wrote:
>
> I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
>
> Please advise.
>
Sorry Jerry, false positive -- something went wrong with the builder. Disregard.
We're still setting things up there.
> Jerry
Best,
sam
signature.asc
10 matches
Mail list logo
