https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #33 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Great, with that comment everything in our code works again, thanks, Mikael.
So, what about Dominique's comment with the fix for PR 58586 and that this
breaks our code again. Shall I (try to) investigate thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #32 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat May 9 13:36:14 2015
New Revision: 222968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix fortran/65894 elemental procedures wrong-code
gcc/fortran/
2015-05-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #31 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Shall I do any checks now? It seems that Mikael's patch is doing the right
thing, and you found the one that breaks it again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
While the Mikael's patch allows the test suite to run as expected, adding the
patch for pr58586 breaks it again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique, comment #27 looks perfect. That would be great for us
> with the upcoming revision of gfortran 6.0.0.
First, obviously Andre's test gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_11.f90 does not
cover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Dominique, comment #27 looks perfect. That would be great for us with the
upcoming revision of gfortran 6.0.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #26 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With Andre's patch on top of a clean tree at r222878, I get
Testsuite summary for WHIZARD 2.2.6
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Just do the configuration without the --disable-ocaml flag (the default is
that OCaml is enabled). The configure should show then something like that
(Ocamlweb is not needed):
configure: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> That would be cool. If you have OCaml installed (version 3.12 or newer,
> and as a French you couldn't complain about that^^) you could run a lot more
> from the test suite.
I have
The OCaml tople
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #23 from Jürgen Reuter ---
That would be cool. If you have OCaml installed (version 3.12 or newer, and as
a French you couldn't complain about that^^) you could run a lot more from the
test suite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> No this is not expected. There seems to be another problem inside
> gfortran 6.0.0 trunk. I cannot test things before tomorrow/weekend.
I will try with a tree with less patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
No this is not expected. There seems to be another problem inside gfortran
6.0.0 trunk. I cannot test things before tomorrow/weekend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Patch submitted at:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-05/msg00025.html
>
> This patch also fixes the issue in comment #15.
With the submitted patch I have been able to build the whizard packa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #19 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Of course, we are fine (or even happy) if you take our code examples for your
regression tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #18 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, it also fixes the ICE in #11. The code example is part of the regression
test added. I hope you don't mind. Most parts of the regression test added base
on your reported issues.
Additionally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #16)
> Patch submitted at:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-05/msg00025.html
>
> This patch also fixes the issue in comment #15.
First of all, thanks for the efforts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #16 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 35464 [details]
> Follow-up patch fixing latest regression.
>
> With this patch all code samples and the code in the tar-archive compile
> and execute well. This patch will need m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #14 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That solely depends on the availability of reviews. At the moment getting a
review is quite difficult.
Btw, when you can use docker, then there is docker image available at:
https://registry.hub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I will give it a try as soon as possible. Any idea how long propagation into
the trunk might last?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35407|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is the small test case for the ICE with the patch provided Andre
Vehreschild:
gfortran -c evaluators.f90
evaluators.f90:40:0:
.or. qn_mask_rest
1
internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > With the attached patch your small test case and the test suite runs
> > w/o segfault now. Furthermore does gcc6 bootstrap and regtest ok
> > with the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> With the attached patch your small test case and the test suite runs
> w/o segfault now. Furthermore does gcc6 bootstrap and regtest ok
> with the patch.
Confirmed. The bigger test in comment 2 runs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35407&action=edit
A first patch.
With the attached patch your small test case and the testsuite runs w/o
segfault now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 35404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35404&action=edit
Code that triggers the segmentation fault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 35403
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35403&action=edit
Auxiliary module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is a reduced test case (where iso_varying_string.f90 is the standard
module with 1 or 2 modifications by us). As this is at the core of our program,
we do rely on a timely fix in order to further use and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|severe regressio
32 matches
Mail list logo
