--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-08-11 03:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE in ix86_expand_epilogue compiling libgcc
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 05:49:40AM -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> > Does anyone know which combi
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-07-20 23:35 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran.dg/allocate_with_typespec.f90 failed
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:41:01PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> gfortran.dg/allocate_with_typespec.f90 shows
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-16 17:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] incorrect error: Stat-variable at (1) shall
not be DEALLOCATEd within the same DEALLOCATE statement
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 02:34:34PM -, kargl at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-11 20:16 ---
Subject: Re: DEALLOCATE aborts program even with STAT=
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:22:57PM -, remko dot scharroo at me dot com
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from remko dot schar
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 04:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:52:03AM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
>
> Neither testcase includ
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 04:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:46:56AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&v
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 04:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:17:56AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> I plan to commit the following as simp
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-02 01:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] STOP parsing rejects valid code
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:42:11AM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> }
> #if 0
> if (gfc_match_eos () !=
--- Comment #15 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-06-01 03:07 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect output at run time
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:09:38AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> My take on this as I was reading through this thread before
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-04-22 18:54 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] ICE during linking in testsuite
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:38:18PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
>
> This appears to be an incompatibilit
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-04-22 17:38 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] ICE during linking in testsuite
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 08:22:26PM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> I guess you have to debug it - I do not have a f
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-04-21 19:14 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] ICE during linking in testsuite
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:01:43AM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu d
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2010-01-16 00:22 ---
Subject: Re: internal compiler error: in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage
ERROR 1
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:04:27AM -, hcolella at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from hc
--- Comment #15 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-12-18 15:52 ---
Subject: Re: Complex division by zero in gfortran returns wrong results
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 02:42:15PM -, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Do you want to suspend this PR
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-20 00:20 ---
Subject: Re: overloaded function with allocatable result problem
If the code is compiled with -fdump-tree-original one
immediately see the cause of the runtime error. Eliminating
the common code
--- Comment #17 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-17 06:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.4 Regression] data statement with nested type
constructors
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 05:35:33AM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
>- Comment #16 from jvd
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-15 19:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.4 Regression] data statement with nested type
constructors
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 07:04:42PM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment
--- Comment #19 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 22:39 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 06:18:35PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> program VolatileTest
> double precision, vola
--- Comment #16 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 21:08 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:39:38PM -, mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> I get:
>
> pr41335.f:3.23:
>
>
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 20:26 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
>
> What is your hardware? x86 or something else?
Opteron.
> I have Atlon 2000 MP and Intel Quad and on both of these syst
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 19:45 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
> Ok, but then "real" and "double precision" datatypes should
> behave in the same way? No?
>
They do beha
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-09-11 18:57 ---
Subject: Re: VOLATILE in Fortran does not take effect
> - Comment #6 from denis_scherbakov at yahoo dot com 2009-09-11 18:38 ---
> By saying "works" I mean that on my sys
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-08-31 00:30 ---
Subject: Re: NAMELIST input with just a comment ("&NAME ! comment \") fails
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:07:34AM -, urbanjost at comcast dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Co
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-08-30 18:54 ---
Subject: Re: NAMELIST input with just a comment ("&NAME ! comment \") fails
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 06:15:07PM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> Strictl
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-08-30 17:58 ---
Subject: Re: NAMELIST input with just a comment ("&NAME ! comment \") fails
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 05:48:15PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- C
--- Comment #20 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-07-20 18:28 ---
Subject: Re: libcpp breaks bootstrap
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 06:09:46PM -, jlquinn at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Author: jlquinn
> Date: Mon Jul 20 18:09:33 2009
> New Revi
--- Comment #18 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-07-20 17:56 ---
Subject: Re: libcpp breaks bootstrap
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 05:42:50PM -, jlquinn at optonline dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #16 from jlquinn at optonline dot net 2009-07
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-07-19 05:30 ---
Subject: Re: libcpp breaks bootstrap
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:09:31AM -, jlquinn at optonline dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from jlquinn at optonline dot net 2009-07
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-06-14 22:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Bootstrap broken on FreeBSD in tree.c
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:02:26PM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from rguen
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-06-01 19:16 ---
Subject: Re: Complex division by zero in gfortran returns wrong results
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 06:14:52PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> - Comment #10 from ghazi at g
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-06-01 14:56 ---
Subject: Re: Complex division by zero in gfortran returns wrong results
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:35:05AM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from gha
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-04-30 16:09 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran support for non-standard sind,cosd and friends
intrinsics
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 07:38:31AM -, ruben at tapir dot caltech dot edu
wrote:
>
>
> --- C
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-04-26 03:29 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran ICE on invalid program
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 08:47:19PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-04-04 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: Compile-time simplification of x**(real)
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 08:44:36PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> At revision 145521, the test from comment #2 retur
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-02-26 15:09 ---
Subject: Re: parameter (constant) and initialization with hex values
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:59:05PM -, rvatne at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> running:
> >gfortran -g -std=f95
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-02-25 22:38 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in cselib_hash_rtx with -O -fPIC -mcmodel=large
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:47:45AM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from hjl dot to
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 21:30 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:13:57PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot e
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:58 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:37:25AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot e
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:55 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:30:40AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot e
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:28:05AM -, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> -2.0^1.9 will be a complex number. Maybe we can define
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:43 ---
Subject: Re: New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:08:40AM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-08 17:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Yet another TRANSFER ICE
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:42:52PM -, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> gfc_target_encode_expr has no means to deal w
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-05 02:32 ---
Subject: Re: Segfault caused by derived-type with allocatable component in
private clause
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:31:20PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comm
--- Comment #26 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:43:13PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > I'll
--- Comment #24 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 14:37 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:10:21PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 06:57 ---
Subject: Re: [F2003] random_seed - allow integer(8) for the arguments
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:44:07AM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> INVALID - only default intege
--- Comment #20 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 04:55 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 04:27:23AM -, deji_aking at yahoo dot ca wrote:
>
>
>>
>&
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-31 01:02 ---
Subject: Re: [F2003] random_seed - allow integer(8) for the arguments
I just checked the F2008 draft for the next standard. It says
13.7.95 RANDOM SEED ([SIZE, PUT, GET])
Description
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 18:40 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 05:51:06PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> > i =
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 16:19 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 03:47:30PM -, deji_aking at yahoo dot ca wrote:
>
>
> --- C
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 15:03 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:36:07PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> > What does
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-10-28 14:03 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran error and ICE at automatic type conversion with transfer
intrinsic
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:30:28PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> --- Comm
--- Comment #28 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-07 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 08:25:54AM -, linuxl4 at sohu dot com wrote:
>
> somebody fix it please.
>
If it
--- Comment #1 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-06 18:14 ---
Subject: Re: New: gfortran.dg/size_kind.f90 doesn't work
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 06:10:58PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> On Linux/ia32, revision 140065 gave
&
--- Comment #29 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-04 06:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling libgcc
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 05:53:28AM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #28 from hjl dot
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-02 16:57 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran errors in compilation and the making for upgraded
compilers
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:23PM -, petermorgan at grapevine dot net dot
au wrote:
>
> gfort
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-09-01 16:56 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap failure due to __muldi3
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:30:27AM -, graham dot stott at btinternet dot
com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #10 from graham dot st
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-08-08 23:46 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 09:06:37PM -, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
>
> --- Comment #9 from
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-05-16 22:10 ---
Subject: Re: PUBLIC and PRIVATE abuse
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:58:47PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> And using
>
> bind(C) :: a
Nice catch.
> gives e
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-05-16 22:01 ---
Subject: Re: PUBLIC and PRIVATE abuse
I have a patch for this. It simply issues a warning
because it appears to be benign.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36251
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 23:52 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
>
> Don't worry, I share your confusion (when I read the standard). :)
>
> I think the
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 23:05 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55:31PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>--- Comment #6 f
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 20:41 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:23:16PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> (In reply to comment
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-29 20:15 ---
Subject: Re: scope of variables in statement function do not acquire rank from
host
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:53:40PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> I disagree. In Fortran 2
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-26 18:00 ---
Subject: Re: fast-math-pr33299.f90 failure with illegal instruction due to
-ffast-math.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:53:52PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-17 19:59 ---
Subject: Re: IBITS gives compiler error
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 07:10:19PM -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-17 18:09 ---
Subject: Re: IBITS gives compiler error
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:10:06PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> I dont want to rant again about gfortran feature, but nevertheles
--- Comment #26 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-02 16:38 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 11:09:36AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> A short term solution could
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-01 16:04 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:31:49PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> With the patch in comment #18
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-01-20 04:17 ---
Subject: Re: fast-math-pr33299.f90 failure with illegal instruction due to
-ffast-math.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 04:09:19AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> What instructi
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-12-20 22:27 ---
Subject: Re: DTIME returns total process time and not since last invocation
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:39:29PM -, dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > Daniel, are you workin
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-11-28 20:08 ---
Subject: Re: Expressions of parameters evaluated with too high precision
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:23:57PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> To sum up my point of view
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-24 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: Spurious warning in TRANSFER intrinsic in Sept 24 snapshot of
gfortran
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:26:01PM -, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2007 19:59:37 -0000,
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-24 19:59 ---
Subject: Re: Spurious warning in TRANSFER intrinsic in Sept 24 snapshot of
gfortran
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 07:17:54PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Commen
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 20:07 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:26:22PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 19:26 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:16:42PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
>
> Ugh. I have a patc
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 19:16 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:02:03PM -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
washington dot edu wrote:
> >
> > The problem
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-18 18:02 ---
Subject: Re: data initialization with more than 2**32 elements
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:56:36PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> The problem is found in decl.c(top_val_li
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-10 18:28 ---
Subject: Re: GFORTRAN OPTIMIZATION ERROR ABOVE -O0 FOR MPICH2 TEST
F90_RMA/BASEATTRWINF90.F90
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 04:03:21PM -, longb at cray dot com wrote:
>
> gcc version
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-09-08 19:17 ---
Subject: Re: GFORTRAN OPTIMIZATION ERROR ABOVE -O0 FOR MPICH2 TEST
F90_RMA/BASEATTRWINF90.F90
>
> >>> ftn -o x -O2 bug2867.f90
> >>> aprun -n 1 ./x
> >>&g
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-30 22:24 ---
Subject: Re: TAB in FORMAT: accept extension, warn with -std=f*
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:52:56PM -, fago at caltech dot edu wrote:
>
> --- Comment #12 from fago at caltech d
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-10 03:50 ---
Subject: Re: TAB in FORMAT: accept extension, warn with -std=f*
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 03:27:33AM -, satyaakam at yahoo dot co dot in
wrote:
>
> Any plans to backport.
>
No.
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-04 17:00 ---
Subject: Re: TAB in FORMAT: accept extension, warn with -std=f*
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:53:33PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> I therefore suggest:
> - Silentl
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-03 20:33 ---
Subject: Re: Implement vendor-specific ISNAN() intrinsic function
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:25:08PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > If we're going to implement
--- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-03 00:04 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:02:55PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> I think you need the same k
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 23:49 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:02:55PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #8 from domin
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 22:29 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:17:02PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
> look to yours, but with -fdefault-integer-8,
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:17:02PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
> look to yours, but with -fdefault-integer-8,
--- Comment #3 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 21:06 ---
Subject: Re: selected_(int|real)_kind fail with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
> I applied your patch, but on PPC Darwin I
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-08-02 20:32 ---
Subject: Re: Compiling equiv_7_db.f90 gives an error with -fdefault-integer-8
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:26:44PM -, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> If we use -fdefault-intege
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 22:29 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:04:55PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> > It is an opteron, so little endian.
>
&g
--- Comment #12 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 21:48 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:39:28PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> > The rrspacing problem is something besides
--- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 20:50 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:32:56PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot e
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 19:37 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:56:33PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> > So, we need to review every unilater
--- Comment #2 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-31 18:40 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong code with with -fdefault-integer-8
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:04:02PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > I have reduced the failure for intrinsic_rrsp
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-07-04 20:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] Different results depending on unnecessary
variable declaration
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:06:08PM -, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-20 01:47 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:59:25PM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #20 from anlauf at gmx dot
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-16 04:09 ---
Subject: Re: Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:53:57AM -, jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com wrote:
>
> I have not checked F2008 yet. My v
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-16 04:07 ---
Subject: Re: Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:46:30AM -, jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #5 from jkr
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-03-06 15:53 ---
Subject: Re: Bad IOSTAT values when readings NAMELISTs past EOF
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:20:23AM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gmx dot de
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
