Hello,
Le 12/06/2024 à 16:57, Jakub Jelinek a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:53:38PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
Perhaps you could create a mirror version of the repo and do some experiments
locally on that to identify where the bottle-neck is coming from?
Not sure where to start for
Le 12/06/2024 à 16:34, Richard Earnshaw (lists) a écrit :
On 12/06/2024 14:23, Mikael Morin via Gcc wrote:
Le 12/06/2024 à 14:58, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 13:57, Mikael Morin via Gcc wrote:
Le 12/06/2024 à 13:48, Jakub Jelinek a écrit :
Hi!
Yesterday the gcc git
Le 12/06/2024 à 14:58, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 13:57, Mikael Morin via Gcc wrote:
Le 12/06/2024 à 13:48, Jakub Jelinek a écrit :
Hi!
Yesterday the gcc git repository was locked for 3 hours
locked by user mikael at 2024-06-11 13:27:44.301067 (pid = 974167)
78:06
Le 12/06/2024 à 14:14, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
Hi,
On Wed, 2024-06-12 at 13:48 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
Yesterday the gcc git repository was locked for 3 hours
locked by user mikael at 2024-06-11 13:27:44.301067 (pid = 974167)
78:06 python hooks/update.py refs/users/mikael/tags/fortr
Le 12/06/2024 à 13:48, Jakub Jelinek a écrit :
Hi!
Yesterday the gcc git repository was locked for 3 hours
locked by user mikael at 2024-06-11 13:27:44.301067 (pid = 974167)
78:06 python hooks/update.py refs/users/mikael/tags/fortran-dev_merges/r10-1545
Le 13/08/2013 20:23, Janis Johnson a écrit :
> On 08/13/2013 04:06 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I noticed something strange in the libgomp testresults (but not
>> necessarily specific to libgomp): an "arbitrary" set of the Fortran
>> execution tests are run just for -O, and others for ea
On Saturday 06 August 2011 00:52:02 Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
> only the C and fortran are specified.
Yes, but it doesn't make much difference in practice. The only difference I
saw is the debugging symbols includ
Hello,
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 15:46:37 Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> void some_function(void);
>
> void
> sub (int *restrict non_aliasing_var)
> {
>*non_aliasing_var = 5;
>some_function ();
>if (*non_aliasing_var != 5)
> foobar_();
> }
>
Couldn't we simulate the desired behaviou
On Sunday 19 June 2011 20:30:17 Christopher Bergström wrote:
> Nothing cloudy
>
> 1) Vet the codebase (stated this clearly)
> 2) Listen to what people say - (What needs to be worked on, are people
> open to things like dual licensing, what's the future of Fortran,
> etc..)
>
> For whatever reason
On Thursday 21 April 2011 11:30:49 Richard Guenther wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> A first release candidate for GCC 4.5.3 is beeing made. The branch
> is now frozen until after the final 4.5.3 release. All changes
> require explicit release manager approval.
>
>
> Quality Data
>
>
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 22:01:03 Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Fortran 2008 has a build in parallelization (Coarray [Fortran], CAF)
> [1]. gfortran did the first steps to a communication-library version
> [2]. The library will be based MPI.
>
> There are two issues I like to discuss in this
Hello,
I have a runnable (fortran) test on which I want to check that a
conditional part is optimized away.
Here are the corresponding tree-dump directives :
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_abort" 32 "original" } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_abort" 30 "optimiz
Daniel Kraft wrote:
>
> I've taken the freedom to move myself as well as Mikael to the reviewer
> section (Janus was already moved) and committed the attached patch to
> MAINTAINERS.
Thanks, I was too lazy :s.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
Steve Kargl wrote:
> Dear Absoft,
>
> Please fix the errors on your web page:
>
> http://www.absoft.com/Absoft_Windows_Compiler.htm
>
> The comparison chart is not only misleading, it is a down
> right lie! The last column is labeled "GNU g77 gfortran".
> g77 and gfortran are completely differe
14 matches
Mail list logo
