https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #32 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 14 19:52:46 2016
New Revision: 236244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-14 Fritz Reese
Backport from trunk: r236242
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #31 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:48:17PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:55:01PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
> >
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #30 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:55:01PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
>
> --- Comment #29 from Fritz Reese ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #29 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #25)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O2 exec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #28 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 03:06:39PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
>
> --- Comment #27 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > WORKFORME on i686-*-freeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #27 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> WORKFORME on i686-*-freebsd and x86_64-*-freebsd.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-05/msg00779.html for
m68k-unknown-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #26 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:09:02AM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
>
> --- Comment #25 from Andreas Schwab ---
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #25 from Andreas Schwab ---
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #23 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38441
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38441&action=edit
diff for revision 235999
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38440
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38440&action=edit
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #21 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38439&action=edit
fortran/ChangeLog diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 7 23:16:23 2016
New Revision: 235999
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235999&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-07 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/56226
* m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #19 from Dave Johansen ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #18)
> (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #17)
> > (In reply to kargl from comment #16)
> > > See the fortran@ mailinglist archive. Fritz posted a patch against
> > > 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #18 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #17)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #16)
> > See the fortran@ mailinglist archive. Fritz posted a patch against
> > 4.8 branch.
>
> Are the patches that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #17 from Dave Johansen ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #16)
> See the fortran@ mailinglist archive. Fritz posted a patch against
> 4.8 branch.
Are the patches that were posted against 6.0?
> That patch will never be committed t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #14)
> Are the patches for 4.8 available or can they be made available? I would
> like to make a Software Collection (SCL) of version of 4.8 with these
> pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Are the patches for 4.8 available or can they be made available? I would like
> to make a Software Collection (SCL) of version of 4.8 with these patches so
> it could be used on RHEL 6/7 without hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #14 from Dave Johansen ---
Are the patches for 4.8 available or can they be made available? I would like
to make a Software Collection (SCL) of version of 4.8 with these patches so it
could be used on RHEL 6/7 without having to jump t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #13 from Fritz Reese ---
I actually have a fairly in-depth set of testcases as part of the patch (based
on lots of legacy code). More are of course welcome, but check out what I've
already added as a starting point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #12 from Joel Matz ---
I'll see if I can put together some unit tests. Thanks for the effort,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #10 from russelljbrennan at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for this Fritz! Should make a lot of people's lives much easier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #9 from Fritz Reese ---
I've finally submitted my patches for a -fdec-structure option which enables
STRUCTURE/RECORD and UNION/MAP support:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-03/msg2.html
I have (4) patches, and had to submit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Joel Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.matz at horizonbtc dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #7 from Fritz Reese ---
FWIW I have the patches ready against the gcc-5.0.0 dev trunk, I'm just waiting
on my employer's lawyer, who has been on vacation for several weeks, to sort
out the legal issues.
The wheels of justice spin awf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #4 from russelljbrennan at gmail dot com 2013-02-08 01:03:12 UTC ---
>From a memory standpoint yes, union/map can be replaced by equivalence. From
an API standpoint it cannot afaik. A suggestion for the former lies here
http://
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2013-02-08
00:46:19 UTC ---
Union can be replaced with EQUIVALENCE I think.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #2 from russelljbrennan at gmail dot com 2013-02-07 13:31:16 UTC ---
It seems to me that the UNION/MAP pair is analogous to a basic form of a c/c++
union of structs. Could the corresponding code not be ganked and fitted to
this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
33 matches
Mail list logo
