https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111853
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 09:00:22AM +, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> This seems safe to backport, what do you think?
>
Paul just landed a big
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114023
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:58PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Steve, Anuj is interested in digging in on this one. This will be a learning
> experi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 08:01:02PM +, kyle.shores44 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #19)
> >
> > It seems your code is hitting a NULL pointer dereference when
> > gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:42:05PM +, kyle.shores44 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
>
> --- Comment #17 from Kyle Shores ---
> I was able to get tuv-x to co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 04:44:52PM +, kyle.shores44 at gmail dot com wrote:
> I have not made a smaller example, but we have since removed json-fortran as a
> dependency for tuv-x.
>
> So it should be ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:33:51PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9)
> > --- snip ---
> > > % gfcx -o z a.f90
> > > a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:24:16PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> Indeed. Bit more reading of F2023, 11.1.3 agrees with you.
>
>11.1.3.1
>
>The A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:27:24PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
>
> --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #5)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114024
--- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:42:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114024
>
> allocate (xx, source = cmp%re)
>
>
> gfcx -c 0093/0093_0130.f90
> 0093/00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113883
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:51:02AM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The trunk branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6caec7d9ec37e60e718a12934c85bac9c12757ac
>
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113845
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 10:06:47PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Created attachment 57374
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:43:08PM +, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823
>
> --- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 07:38:59PM +, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113823
>
> --- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:35:41PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #14)
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 09:52:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 09:52:39PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
>
> I think that you cannot do
>
> + if (MPFR_HALF_CYCLE)
>
> you really mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:37:17PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Alexander Westbroo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113313
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 07:03:05AM +, john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113313
>
> --- Comment #2 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
> Thank you! You ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113305
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:24:40PM +, ivan.pribec at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113305
>
> --- Comment #3 from Ivan Pribec ---
> In the mail archive
> (https://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 08:34:38PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
>
> --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #28 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:35:32PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> --- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Created attachment 56882
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 07:48:08PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> --- Comment #24 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Jerry De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:03:35PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> I have the patch applied.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Do we need any other test cases?
>
I think that we need not added any testcases. The degree
trig function have been availa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 07:53:01PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to anlauf from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 09:45:33PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> here's a minor update that fully removes the "Extended math intrinsics" node.
> Otherwise your patch would not compile here.
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 07:59:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Karg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:58:18PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:56:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112873
>
> --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> The patch looks mostly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 03:34:42PM +, trnka at scm dot com wrote:
> > If expr->where is pointing to NULL, then something is definitely not
> > set up correctly or your code is now going through a differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104649
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 05:18:02PM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
>
> commit r14-4983-gc6430d3e6d3279c7e4be9d189031a17bb3dec347
> Author: Harald Anlauf
> Date: Thu Oct 26 22:32:35 2023 +020
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
> Ok, indeed they were some warnings. I had to use &gfc_current_locus, as you
> suggested, so now all of them are pointed at the end of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 05:20:46PM +, zed.three at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
>
> --- Comment #2 from zed.three at gmail dot com ---
> The common block is i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 04:00:10PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
>
> No, I meant building *gcc* with those flags, but alas each gcc compilation
> stage was still building with "-O2" so almost all of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:00:27AM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
>
> It says something about a non-recursive function likely calling itself. I
> will
> inspect my source, even it is a bit too big. Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:56:32PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from Alberto Luaces ---
> I got the same error in almost the same circumstances (crash in
> error.cc:1078).
>
> I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 07:07:37PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716
>
> --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:58:15PM +, philippe.wautelet at aero dot
obs-mip.fr wrote:
>
> What is the status of this bug?
>
> It seems that it is not present any more in the 12.x and 13.x GCC versions.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 04:19:52PM +, trnka at scm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
>
> --- Comment #22 from Tomáš Trnka ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:08:45AM +, trnka at scm dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #17 from Tomáš Trnka ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> index 3cd470ddcca..b0bb8bc1471 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Note final->attr.pure = 0 seems to contradict C1595 while constructing
> the wrapper. I'm not too familiar with this portion of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110825
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 08:54:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110825
>
> --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 06:15:44AM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
>
> --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:34:02PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
>
> Jerry DeLisle changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 06:06:59PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Fixed.
>
Thanks for taking care of the commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:51:17PM +, jde...@santafe-conicet.gov.ar wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jorge D'Elia ---
>
> The access restriction is a reason of the use IMPORT statements in the
> projects,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:51:02AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358
>
> Jerry DeLisle changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 07:26:43PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
>
> --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 03:55:51PM +, Gary.White at ColoState dot edu
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865
>
> --- Comment #9 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu dot edu> ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 07:11:17PM +, Gary.White at ColoState dot edu
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > (In reply to gary.wh...@colostat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:37:48AM +, adelson.oliveira at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
>
> --- Comment #8 from Adelson Oliveira ---
> Then I should have defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109575
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:24:45PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109575
>
> --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I have some idea how (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 05:22:59AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I think we agree on all points. Here's the diff I envision.
> NOte, I've restricted it to user defined functions. Remove
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 07:15:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
>
> --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Ka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 05:25:20PM +, leandro.lupori at linaro dot org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
>
> I'm trying to check with the issue reporter how extensive is his us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 07:44:36PM +, leandro.lupori at linaro dot org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109500
>
> --- Comment #5 from Leandro Lupori ---
> Ok, thanks for the detaile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109453
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 01:25:16AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> $ gfc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=gfc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/jerry/dev/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:16:20PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > Remove ice-on-invalid-code as I don't ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 07:21:21PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> For ILP32 (32bit x86) and LLP64IL32 (64bit Windows/mingw) targets, it will use
> c_long_long which is outputted wrong. Anyways
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:42:08PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:28:38PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
>
> --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
> There is a bug with -m32 and fc-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109322
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 05:50:05PM +, emr-gnu at hev dot psu.edu wrote:
>
>
> Extending my original demonstrator, if you add a "INTEGER(KIND=C_INT64_T) ::
> E", you get the following output:
>
> > gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104572
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:02:14PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > Self explanatory.
> >
> > diff --git a/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:27:58PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> So, there is a chunk of code in decl.cc(4682-4689 or so),
>
> if (implicit_flag == 1)
> {
> if (matched_type && gfc_match_char (')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 02:57:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
>
> --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to urbanjost fr
e Kargl from comment #4)
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
> > apl.washington.edu wrote:
> >
> > Looking in obj/gcc/Makefile at line 341 I see the comment
> >
> > # Make sure the $(MAKE) variable is defined.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Tue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Tue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:25:53PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling
> make ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92639
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 05:51:29PM +, cessenat at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92639
>
> --- Comment #2 from Olivier Cessenat ---
> integer(kind=4) valid range is -2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:48:07AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
>
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> For the specific testcase I also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:49:38PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> So the right way of fixing this i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108663
--- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
> $ gfortran-13-20221218 -c z1.f90 # missing error
> $
> $ gfortran-13-20230115 -c z1.f90
> z1.f90:12:7:
>
>12 |use m, only: t, pdtt, s
> | 1
> internal compiler error: in check_complete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 06:13:33PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621
>
> This appears to be related to Sandra and Tobias's work on CFI. In particula
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:06:12AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
>
> Well we sure are not going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:56:02AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> I found that the attached patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 07:44:05PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Steve, I'm going to commit your patch.
>
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 08:51:03PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> The patch in comment#2 regtests cleanly.
>
> I can package it and submit if you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102595
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 08:07:16PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102595
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> I started to do some variations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:49:44AM +, ben.brewer at codethink dot co.uk
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #11 from Ben Brewer ---
> So I was using "-x f77" whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 01:09:22AM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Unbelievable! I found the fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:50:37PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
>
> --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:50:08PM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
> The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fec9fc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 08:23:39PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995
>
> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Can we close this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107995
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 07:37:06PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > This patch prevents the ICE.
>
> The patch is mostly good, but does not set the errmsg vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:47:44AM +, barrowes at alum dot mit.edu wrote:
>
> Thanks for engaging, and thanks for the suggestion. I might be able to do this
> over the winter. Could you give me a hint as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:50:56AM +, barrowes at alum dot mit.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
>
> --- Comment #10 from Ben Barrowes ---
> The reason the stdout redirectio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 08:00:35PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874
>
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 08:14:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
>
> --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Weslley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what is meant by "Fortran rules"? F66 does not
> have any particular algorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
>
> --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Fri,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:05:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
>
> --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 09:16:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 08:31:58PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397
>
> --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107441
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:11:08PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107441
>
> --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:22:47PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
>
> --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Submitted: http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:24:04PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
>
> --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:40:59AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> (In reply to kargl from comment #9)
> > Please commit the patch in comment #7. character(kind=4) is not
> > interoperable
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 05:29:58PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> % gfcx -c -std=f2018 a.f90
> a.f90:1:30:
>
> 1 | character(kind=4) function bar(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107266
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:40:59AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> (b) subroutine bar(x, y, z) bind(C)
> character(kind=4,len=*) :: x
> character(kind=4) :: y(:)
> character(kin
1 - 100 of 1026 matches
Mail list logo
